ETHICAL 
ADDRESSES 


January,  1909 

Vol.  XVI.  No.  5 


AND  ETHICAL  RECORD 


The  Right  of  Political 
Asylum  Threatened 


Felix  Abler 

AND 

William  M.  Salter 


-Published   Monthly  by- 


THE  AMERICAN  ETHICAL  UNION 
1415  LOCUST  STREET,  PHILADELPHIA 
YEARLY.  $1.00  SINGLE  COPY,  10  CTS 

(Entered  at  Philadelphia  as  second-clasi  matter) 


ETHICAL  ADDRESSES 


f 


Issued  monthly,  except  July  and  August.     Volume  begins 
with  the  September  number. 

Vol.  XVI.    No.  1.     (September,  1908.) 
The  Moral  Effect  of  Gambling.     Felix  Adler. 
The  Sources  of  Moral  Inspiration.     Leslie  Willis  Sprague. 

Vol.  XVI.    No.  2.     (October,  1908.) 
What  is  an  Ethical  Society?     Leslie  Willis  Sprague. 
Ethical  Culture — Some  Misapprehensions  Corrected.     Leslie 

Willis  Sprague. 
The  Summer  School  of  Ethics. 

Vol.  XVI.    No.  3.     (November,  1908.) 
The  Four-Fold  Path  of  Spiritual  Progress.    Felix  Adler. 
Echoes  of  the  International  Congress  on  Moral  Education. 

Vol.  XVI.    No.  4.     (December,  1908.) 
John  Milton — An  Apostle  of  Liberty.   David  Saville  Muzzey. 

THE     INTERNATIONAL 
OURNAL      OF      ETHICS 


J 


Issued   Quaiterly.     Volume  begins   with   October  Number 
LEADING  CONTENTS,  JANUARY,   1909. 


Fri»»dricli  Paulsen's  Ethical  Work  and  Influence.  By  Pro- 
fessor* Praxvk  Thilly,  ComeU  :Uii'versity. 

The  liRte  Dr.;  Ej^Tvard*  .€«Cijt;<'l.*  •  By  Professor  J.  S.  Mackenzie, 
University   College,*  Carcfifi!'       '•  * 

The  International  Congrress  on  M-^ral  Edncation.  By  Pro- 
FESSCT{  ^f.^l!S.»feftdrer,'Cnivex.'sit.vr  of  'Manchester. 

Self-Este.Wo.  ^m^,  iVe  -<  I*<t\;e  ©f*  R«cit»srnition  as  Sonrces  of 
Condnct.  By  H.  H.  Schbo'eder/  State  Normal  School,  White- 
water,  Wisconsin. 

The  Morals  of  an  Immoralist — Priedrich  Ntetasche.  II.  By 
Alfred  H.  Benn,  Florence,  Italy. 

The  Will  to  Malie-Believe.  By  Wilbur  M.  Urban,  Trinity  College, 
Hartford,  Conn. 

Crime  and   Social    Responsihility.     By  Carl  Heath,  London. 

Yearly,  $2.60  Single  Nnmher,  65   Cents 

Comhinatlon    with    "Ethical    Addresses,"   Yearly,    fS.OO. 


THE    AMERICAN   ETHICAI.  UNION, 
1415  L.ocast  Street.  Philadelphia,  Pa. 


THE  RIGHT  OF  POLITICAL  ASYLUM 
THREATENED 

A  FEW  words  of  explanation  may  be  offered  of  the  cir- 
cumstances which  have  led  to  the  republication  of  the  two 
following  lectures  by  Felix  Adler  and  William  M.  Salter. 

The  Russian  Extradition  Treaty  of  1893  has  made 
America  the  unconscious  tool  of  the  Czar's  autocracy. 
This  possibility  was  foreseen  by  such  lovers  of  liberty  as 
George  Kennan,  Felix  Adler  and  William  Salter  at  the 
time  the  Treaty  was  concluded.  Since  the  ratification  of 
the  Treaty,  the  Russian  people  have  gone  through  a  heroic 
revolution.  In  it  the  blood  of  martyrs  has  beeri  gener- 
ously spilt,  while  the  atrocities  perpetrated  by  the  Russian 
government  can  only  be  compared  to  the  exquisite  cruel- 
ties of  the  Inquisition. 

A  policy  of  treacherous  concession  brought  about  the 
Czar's  manifesto  of  1905,  which  proposed  to  offer  some 
fundamental  constitutional  rights; — freedom  of  speech, 
the  right  of  assembly,  and  electoral  rights.  Three  Dumas 
have  been  formed,  each  more  farcical  in  its  basis  of  pop- 
ular representation  than  the  other.  The  self-sacrifice  of 
the  finest  flower  of  the  Russian  youth  has  still  borne  no 
actual  fruits. 

The  autocracy  is  intrenched ;  for  in  the  two  years  since 
the  Czar's  manifesto  of  1905,  i8,374  persons  were  con- 
demned for  political  offences.  Of  these,  2,717  v/ere  sen- 
tenced to  death.  During  the  months  of  January  and  Feb- 
ruary, 1908,  500  political  offenders  were  executed.  An 
official  document,  signed  by  thirty-five  members  of  the 
second  Duma  is  authority  for  such  heartrending  facts  as 
these!    From  December,  1905,  to  June,  1906,  1,170  per- 

113 

3420S5 


II4/.".  :  i/5l^ir/RlGj^  ^F/JOLtTICAL  ASYLUM. 

sons  in  the  Lettish  region  alone  were  executed  without 
trial.  This  document  further  accuses  the  government  of 
torturing  the  politicals  in  order  to  wring  "confessions" 
from  them.  The  absence  of  any  semblance  of  legal  pro- 
cedure in  these  cases  is  abhorrent  to  those  who  have  been 
nurtured  in  the  spirit  of  our  free  political  institutions. 
And  now,  conscious  of  its  security  at  home,  the  Russian 
autocracy  has  ventured  to  commit  barbarity  abroad.  It 
has  caused  two  Russian  peasants  to  be  arrested, — Jan 
Janoff  Pouren  in  New  York,  and  Christian  Roudovitz  in 
Chicago.  In  both  these  cases,  the  Russian  government 
has  manipulated  the  harmless  treaty  of  1893,  and  in  ac- 
cordance with  its  ''innocent"  provisions,  has  charged 
them  with  common  felonies.  Yet,  despite  the  opinions  of 
some  of  those  most  learned  in  the  law,  that  the  defence 
has  supplied  ample  evidence  that  Pouren  and  Roudovitz 
were  participants  in  the  revolution,  and  that  these  acts,  if 
committed  at  all,  were  of  a  purely  political  character, 
they  have  been  incarcerated  in  American  jails.  What- 
ever may  be  the  fate  of  these  peasants,  it  is  clear  that  the 
Russian  government  is  utilizing  this  treaty  to  hound  its 
patriots  abroad,  and  to  deny  them,  if  possible,  our  time- 
honored  right  of  political  asylum.  A  fundamental  moral 
issue  is  here  involved.  Hence,  the  prophetic  protests  of 
Prof,  Adler  and  Mr.  Salter;  and  hence  the  appropriate- 
ness of  makinof  their  addresses  available. 


A  PROTEST  AGAINST  THE  RUSSIAN 
TREATY* 

By  Felix  Adler. 

The  feeling  of  good-will  between  the  United  States  and 
Russia  is  of  long  standing,  and  has  become,  so  far  as  we 
are  concerned,  almost  a  part  of  our  national  tradition.  It 
is  founded  in  part  on  valuable  service  rendered  in  the  past, 
in  part  on  more  general  grounds.  Likeness  of  situation 
begets  sympathy  between  peoples  as  well  as  individuals. 
The  Russian  nation,  like  our  own,  is  a  nation  in  the  mak- 
ing. After  long  ages  of  subjection  to  a  foreign  rule,  after 
centuries  of  intellectual  tutelage  and  dependence  on  for- 
eign examples,  Russia  to-day  claims  for  herself  a  pre- 
eminent place  among  civilized  states,  and  the  most  ardent 
of  her  patriots  aspire  to  add  to  the  world's  stock  of 
thought  and  experience  a  unique  contribution  of  their  own 
in  harmony  with  the  peculiar  character  and  endowments 
of  the  Russian  race.  Already  a  marvellous  literature  has 
been  produced  which  has  spread  far  beyond  the  confines 
of  their  empire.  The  works  of  Tolstoi,  Tourguenef,  Go- 
gol, and  many  others  have  been  translated  into  every 
tongue  and  are  read  in  every  zone,  and  these  are  but  the 
fair  beginnings,  giving  promise  of  mightier  developments 
to  follow.  The  Russian  people,  moreover,  are  like  our 
own  in  this,  that  they  have  before  them  a  vast  continent 
to  be  subdued.  The  Russian  Empire  includes  half  of  Eu- 
rope and  Asia,  and  covers  one-sixth  of  the  land  surface 


*An  address  delivered  before  the  Society  for  Ethical  Culture 
of  New  York,  Sunday,  March  26th,  1893. 


Il6  THE  RIGHT   OF   POLITICAL   ASYLUM. 

of  the  globe.  In  this  immense  extent  of  territory  there 
are  boundless  vacant  spaces  to  be  filled  by  colonization, 
latent  resources  of  incalculable  value  to  be  developed,  and 
splendid  fortunes  seem  to  beckon  on  the  pioneers.  What- 
ever turn  affairs  may  take,  this  much  is  certain,  that  we 
at  the  present  day  are  but  at  the  beginning  of  human  his- 
tory, and  that  the  growth  of  Russia  will  powerfully  af- 
fect, for  good  or  evil,  the  future  destinies  of  mankind. 

Considerations  such  as  these  suffice  to  explain  the  in- 
stinctive sympathy  that  subsists  between  the  Rusian  and 
American  people,  widely  separated  as  they  are,  as  well  in 
point  of  space  as  in  manners,  habits  of  thought,  and  insti- 
tutions. And,  in  what  I  shall  have  to  say  to-day,  I  desire 
that  nothing  may  be  construed  as  reflecting  upon  this 
sympathy,  or  as  intended  to  lessen  the  kindly  feeling  to- 
ward a  people  which,  whatever  its  faults  may  be,  pos- 
sesses so  many  generous  qualities  that  challenge  respect 
and  admiration.  But  we  are  bound  to  separate  between 
the  people  and  the  government. 

V'  The  occasion  which  calls  forth  my  remarks  to-day  is 
the  negotiation  of  a  treaty  between  the  President  and 
Senate  of  United  States  and  the  government  of  the  Czar, 
under  the  terms  of  which  an  attempt  upon  the  life  of  the 
Russian  Emperor  shall  not  be  considered  a  political  crime, 
and  Russian  Refugees  in  this  country  against  whom  a 
prima  facie  case  of  complicity  in  such  an  attempt  can  be 
made  out  shall  be  extradited.  What  is  there  in  the  nature 
of  such  an  agreement,  it  may  be  asked,  to  excite  protest  ? 
Do  we  desire  that  this  country  shall  harbor  anarchists? 
Does  any  sane  man,  any  man  whose  moral  judgment  is 
not  distorted  approve  of  murder?  Do  we  wish  that  per- 
sons who  use  criminal  means  for  the  attainment  of  politi- 
cal ends,  self-constituted  defenders  of  popular  rights, 
shall  make  this  land  their  asylum?    Why,  then,  should 


A  PROTEST  AGAINST  THE  RUSSIAN  TREATY.  II 7 

we  remonstrate  on  behalf  of  a  class  of  persons  so  odious 
and  pernicious  ?  Opinions  like  these  one  often  hears  ex- 
pressed by  persons  who  betray  but  a  superficial  acquaint- 
ance with  the  issues  involved.  In  order  that  the  true 
bearings  of  this  treaty  may  be  understood,  it  is  necessary 
before  all  things  to  examine  into  the  nature  of  the  gov- 
ernment with  which  we  are  about  to  enter  into  these  en- 
gagements, and  to  a  preliminary  sketch  of  this  sort,  I 
have  to  ask  your  attention. 

Among  all  the  nations  of  Christendom,  Russia  is  the 
only  one  the  government  of  which  has  remained  an  abso- 
lute autocracy.  It  is  difficult  for  Americans  to  imagine 
how  an  autocratic  government  operates,  so  utterly  alien 
is  it  to  their  sentiments  and  principles.  In  Russia,  the 
will  of  one  man  is  law  and  the  source  of  all  law.  With 
the  exception  of  the  provincial  assemblies,  the  Zemstvos, 
whose  functions  are  restricted  to  local  affairs,  there  are 
no  representative  bodies  that  express  the  will,  or  even  voice 
the  wishes  of  the  people.  There  exist,  indeed,  two  po- 
litical organs,  the  Senate  and  the  Council  of  the  Empire, 
the  names  of  which  might  suggest  a  certain  limitation  of 
the  autocratic  power.  But  the  Directing  Senate,  founded 
by  Peter  the  Great,  has  ceased  to  direct  and  has  become  a 
judicial  chamber  solely;  while  the  Council  of  the  Empire, 
created  at  the  beginning  of  the  present  century,  is  permit- 
ted, indeed,  to  discuss  laws,  but  has  no  share  in  their  en- 
actment. Its  function  is  limited  to  giving  advice.  It  can- 
not even  make  recommendations  to  the  Czar  as  a  unit, 
for  the  opinion  of  the  minority,  as  well  as  the  majority  of 
its  members,  must  be  laid  before  the  Emperor,  and  it  is 
for  him  to  adopt  either  opinion,  or  to  disregard  both,  as 
he  prefers.  The  Council  of  the  Empire,  therefore,  is  in 
no  sense  a  check  upon  the  unlimited  sovereignty  of  the 
Czar.    Its  members,  moreover,  are  appointed  by  the  Em- 


Il8  THE  RIGHT  OF  POLITICAL  ASYLUM. 

peror  himself.  They  are  his  creatures,  dependent  upon 
his  will.  How,  then,  can  they  be  expected  to  oppose  his 
wishes  ? 

Again,  in  many  monarchial  countries,  the  Ministers — 
and  especially  the  Prime  Minister — exercise  a  species  of 
restraining  influence  upon  the  action  of  the  King.  But 
the  Russian  Czars  permit  in  their  vicinity  no  Prime  Min- 
isters to  grow  up,  and  perhaps  to  overshadow  them,  as 
Bismarck  overshadowed  his  King.  There  is  no  Cabinet 
of  Ministers.  Each  minister  is  independent  of  his  col- 
leagues. He  may  decide  on  matters  that  involve  the  gen- 
eral policy  of  the  Empire  without  their  knowledge,  and  is 
often  secretly  at  war  with  them.  It  has  frequently  been 
the  policy  of  the  Czars  to  foment  these  jealousies  and  ri- 
valries among  their  immediate  advisers  on  the  principle  of 
"divide  et  impera,"  in  order  to  prevent  any  one  of  them 
from  gaining  an  ascendency  which  might  in  the  least  ham- 
per the  full,  free  sweep  of  the  imperial  will. 

The  Russian  system  is  a  kind  of  paternalism  carried  to 
the  verge  of  the  absurd.  The  theory  is  that  the  people  are 
children,  minors,  and  that  the  Czar  is  their  father.  A 
Russian  is  not  allowed  to  leave  the  country  without  hav- 
ing first  received  the  permission  of  the  Czar.  A  Russian 
merchant,  peasant,  or  workingman  is  not  allowed  to 
travel  for  a  distance  of  more  than  a  few  miles  from  his 
place  of  residence  without  father's  permission.  The 
Russian  is  not  allowed  to  read  what  he  pleases,  but,  by 
the  imperial  censorship,  a  catalogue  is  published  of  books 
which  it  is  not  safe  for  him  to  read,  just  as  parents  care- 
fully select  the  reading  matter  for  their  children,  so  that 
nothing  shall  fall  into  their  hands  which  can  harm  them. 
The  Russian  is  not  even  permitted  to  perform  certain  acts 
of  charity  on  his  own  motion.  No  one  may  found  a  bed 
in  a  hospital,  nor  a  scholarship  in  a  school,  without  first 


A  PROTEST  AGAINST  THE  RUSSIAN  TREATY.  II9 

asking  the  permission  of  the  government  to  do  so.  Under 
the  Emperor  Nicholas  it  is  said  that  no  one  was  allowed 
even  to  build  a  house,  if  it  had  more  than  five  windows, 
without  first  obtaining  the  authorization  of  the  Czar. 
Thus  the  figure  of  the  Czar  everywhere  looms  up,  huge 
and  overawing — Hke  one  of  those  statues  of  the  ancient 
Egyptian  Kings  which  we  see  in  museums — and  fills  the 
whole  political  horizon. 

But,  it  will  be  asked,  does  not  the  press  serve  in  Russia, 
as  everywhere  else,  to  restrain  the  abuses  of  power?  Does 
it  not  give  expression  to  the  wishes  of  the  people,  and 
bring  the  grievances  of  the  governed  to  the  notice  of  their 
julers?  The  Russian  press  can  render  no  such  service, 
because  it  is  itself  bound  and  gagged.  The  journals  are 
permitted  to  treat  literary  and  scientific  subjects,  and  to 
discuss,  to  a  certain  extent,  the  politics  of  foreign  coun- 
tries. But  the  moment  they  touch  on  domestic  affairs, 
they  do  so  at  their  peril.  The  slightest  indiscretion  will 
bring  upon  them  the  most  drastic  measures  of  administra- 
tive repression.  Sometimes  a  newspaper  appears  with 
many  or  even  all  of  its  columns  blank,  the  copy  having 
been  cancelled,  by  official  order,  and  nothing  remaining 
but  the  advertisements.  Sometimes,  on  the  other  hand, 
the  right  of  printing  advertisements  is  withdrawn,  and 
the  journal  is  thus  fcrippled  in  its  financial  resources.  At 
other  times,  the  sale  of  a  newspaper  on  the  streets  is  for- 
bidden. Or  an  obnoxious  editor  is  forced,  under  govern- 
ment pressure,  to  resign,  and,  if  he  should  attempt  to  re- 
sist, is  quietly  sent  into  exile  to  reflect,  on  the  frozen 
shores  of  the  White  Sea,  or  in  distant  Siberia,  on  the 
folly  of  unseasonable  candor.  Under  such  circumstances, 
how  can  the  press  serve  as  the  champion  of  freedom,  or 
as  an  agent  in  the  redress  of  popular  wrongs  ? 

Now,  what  have  been  the  fruits  of  this  system  ?    They 


120  THE  RIGHT  OF   POLITICAL  ASYLUM. 

have  been  such  as  might  be  expected,  such  as  a  system  of 
this  kind  can  alone  bring  forth.  The  finances  of  the  Em- 
pire, despite  its  vast  resources,  as  is  well  known,  are  in  a 
precarious  condition.  The  serfs,  it  is  true,  have  been 
emancipated  by  the  father  of  the  present  Emperor;  but 
how  has  emancipation  thus  far  profited  them  ?  The  gov- 
ernment has  poured  seven  hundred  millions  of  rubles,  in 
the  shape  of  redemption  money,  into  the  lap  of  seventy- 
one  thousand  proprietors.  But  the  great  mass  of  the  peas- 
ants have  not  been  benefited.  A  few  wealthy  persons 
have  been  still  further  enriched.  The  great  multitude  has 
been  more  deeply  impoverished  than  ever.  The  allotments 
of  land  assigned  to  them  are  insufficient  for  their  needs. 
They  are  victimized  by  crafty  speculators  and  rack-rent- 
ing landlords.  Every  year  one-half  the  adult  male  popu- 
lation leave  their  homes  and  wander  through  Russia,  a  va- 
grant army  in  search  of  labor  and  subsistence.  The 
famine  decimates  their  ranks,  and  the  cholera  finds  among 
them  a  congenial  soil. 

A  people  can  only  be  strong  if  it  be  free,  and  to  use 
freedom  aright  education  is  indispensable.  The  great 
mass  of  the  Russian  people  are  ignorant,  uneducated,  and 
illiterate.  The  government,  perceiving  the  necessity  of 
raising  the  educational  level  of  the  people,  has  founded 
universities  and  schools.  But,  by  one  of  those  singular 
contradictions  which  one  meets  with  so  often  in  this  un- 
happy country,  it  has  withdrawn  with  one  hand  what  it 
oflfered  with  the  other.  The  love  of  liberty,  that  is  nour- 
ished in  the  higher  educational  centres,  has  provoked  the 
hostility  of  the  authorities.  Many  a  time  the  universities 
have  been  closed,  the  students  persecuted,  and  the  cur- 
riculum of  studies  interfered  with  and  restricted,  and 
while  the  means  which  have  been  provided  for  popular 
education  are  altogether  inadequate,  the  government  jeal- 


A  PROTEST  AGAINST  THE  RUSSIAN  TREATY.  121 

ously  debars  private  individuals  from  establishing  schools 
which  might  supply  the  deficiencies  of  its  own  provisions 
to  this  end. 

In  addition  to  the  evils  already  signalized,  corruption 
reigns  to  a  degree  almost  incredible.  The  whole  govern- 
ment service  is  honeycombed  with  it.  A  system  of  police 
espionage  has  been  devised  which  penetrates  even  into  the 
sanctuary  of  the  family.  The  mails  are  habitually  tam- 
pered with,  so  that  even  high  government  officials  do  not 
dare  to  entrust  their  secret  correspondence  to  the  postal 
service.  And,  above  all,  religious  intolerance  of  the  fierc- 
est and  most  unrelenting  kind  has  full  sway  under  the 
present  incumbent  of  the  throne.  It  is  said  by  those  who 
profess  to  speak  from  knowledge  that  the  Emperor  Alex- 
ander the  Third  is  a  man  of  irreproachable  personal  hab- 
its, of  the  strictest  principles,  and  fully  imbued  with  the 
belief  in  the  sacredness  of  his  mission.  The  powers  of  an 
autocrat,  when  united  in  the  hands  of  an  honest  fanatic, 
are  infinitely  more  to  be  dreaded  than  when  entrusted  to 
a  more  worldly  and  less  sincere  nature.  Every  scruple 
that  might  plead  on  behalf  of  humanity  is  quelled  by  the 
counsels  of  bigotry.  Every  obstacle  to  the  execution  of 
those  counsels  is  removed  by  the  possession  of  despotic 
power. 

Is  it  to  be  wondered  at  that,  under  such  a  system,  with 
such  a  nightmare  pressing  on  the  breast  of  the  Russian 
people,  there  should  have  arisen  in  certain  quarters  a  cry 
of  protest ;  that,  among  the  young,  the  hopeful,  the  intel- 
ligent, the  students  of  the  superior  schools  and  universi- 
ties, combinations  should  have  been  formed  with  a  view 
of  shaking  off  the  yoke  under  which  their  country  has  suf- 
fered so  long,  and  is  still  suffering.  Russian  nihilism  is 
the  legitimate  offspring  of  Russian  despotim.  The  Rus- 
sian nihilists  are  not  to  be  confounded  with  those  insane 


122  THE   RIGHT   OF   POLITICAL   ASYLUM.  | 

anarchists  who  are  bent  on  destruction,  reckless  of  conse- 
quences. The  Russian  nihilists,  it  cannot  be  denied,  have  / 
been  moved  by  a  patriotic  motive.  In  the  beginning,  their  j 
methods  were  mild  and  gentle  enough.  They  acted  the  ' 
part,  as  has  been  said,  of  Christian  evangelists.  They 
mingled  with  the  peasants.  They  stripped  themselves  of 
the  privileges  of  their  superior  station.  They  led  the  life 
of  hardship  and  privation.  They  sought,  by  teaching  and 
by  the  spread  of  literature,  to  prepare  the  common  people 
for  that  better  political  and  social  state  of  which  they 
dreamed.  It  was  only  when  the  authorities,  by  the  em- 
ployment of  the  most  violent  measures,  checked  this 
peaceful  propaganda,  when  the  Russian  patriots  beheld 
their  brothers  buried  in  the  depths  of  Russian  prisons,  or 
condemned  to  the  horrors  of  Siberian  exile,  that  one  sec- 
tion of  them,  the  extreme  section,  determined  to  meet  vio- 
lence with  violence.  At  first,  their  retributive  measures 
were  directed  against  the  agents  of  the  Czar — the  Chief 
of  Police  and  the  Governors.  And  it  was  when  these 
measures  failed  to  procure  relief  that  their  attacks  were 
finally  turned  against  the  Emperor  himself.  In  a  country 
like  Russia,  there  are  only  two  ways  open  by  which  a 
change  may  be  effected.  The  one  is  to  work  from  below 
upward ;  the  other  from  above  downward.  The  one  is  to 
disseminate  liberal  ideas  among  the  people  at  large  and 
to  prepare  them  slowly  for  a  political  transformation. 
The  other  is  to  induce  the  person  in  whom  the  sovereign 
power  is  vested  to  grant  of  his  own  accord  liberal  institu- 
tions to  the  nation.  The  former  way  was  blocked  by  the 
Czar  himself.  As  to  the  latter,  the  nihilists  might  well  be 
tempted  to  ask  how  an  autocrat  who  believes  that  he  rules 
by  divine  right  could  be  induced  to  divest  himself  of  even 
the  smallest  fraction  of  his  power?  Should  it  be  by  ar- 
guments derived  from  reason?    Should  it  be  by  petition 


»c 


A  PROTEST  AGAINST  THE  RUSSIAN  TREATY.  1 23 

or  by  entreaty?  All  these  methods  had  been  tried,  Sc'em- 
ingly  without  avail.  And  hence  they  reached  the  conclu- 
sion that  the  only  way  to  influence  him  would  be  through 
the  motive  of  fear,  that  he  must  be  terrified  into  letting 
go  a  part  of  his  power.  And  it  was  in  this  way  that  a  sec- 
tion of  the  Revolutionists  became,  in  the  literal  sense  of 
the  word,  "terrorists."  I  am  not  here  to  discuss,  much 
less  to  defend  their  methods.  The  system  of  terror  which  c.^  ^ 
they  tried  seems  not  to  have  produced  the  results  they  ex-  \^^^ 
pected.  But  it  seems  to  me  equally  impossible  to  deny  ^|,.i.e^c 
that  their  actions  were  inspired  by  political  motives,  and  t-^i^^o 
that  whatever  crimes  they  have  committed  are^to  be  classi-  du^  ^t>r 
fied  and  characterized  as  political  crimes.  If,  then,  the  ^^  ' 
treaty  now  pending  with  Russia,  declares  that  attempts 
upon  the  life  of  the  Czar  shall  not  be  regarded  as  political 
crimes,  but  shall  be  treated  as  ordinary  murder,  the  posi- 
tion therein  taken  seems  to  me  an  untenable  one.  This  po- 
sition would  be  valid  in  the  case  of  a  liberal,  or  quasi- 
liberal  government  like  that  of  Belgium,  with  which  a 
similar  treaty  is  already  in  existence.  But  it  is  not  valid 
in  the  case  of  Russia.  For,  in  Russia,  an  attack  upon  the 
government  is  an  attack  upon  the  Czar,  and  an  attack 
on  the  Czar  an  attack  on  the  governnient.  For  the  Czar 
is  the  keystone  of  the  governmental  arch.  Nay,  he  is 
himself  the  government,  the  fountain-head  of  power,  the 
source  from  which  all  authority  whatsoever  througliout 
his  vast  dominions  is  derived.  The  rule  that  nations  do 
not  surrender  fugitives  for  political  offences  is  now  well 
established  and  generally  accepted.  All  that  it  is  neces- 
sary to  prove,  in  the  present  instance,  is  that  attempts 
against  the  life  of  the  Czar  are  dictated  by  political  mo- 
tives ;  that  those  who  make  such  attempts  are  political  of- 
fenders, and  not  ordinary  criminals.  That  this  is  so,  I, 
for  one,  cannot  doubt.    Nor  must  we  make  the  mistake  of 


124  THE  RIGHT  OF   POLITICAL  ASYLUM. 

supposing  that  a  refusal  to  surrender  in  the  least  implies 
the  condoning  or  the  approval  of  the  offence  or  crime  in 
question.  The  Swiss  Republic  in  1871  refused,  in  answer 
to  a  request  by  President  Thiers,  to  extradite  the  Com- 
munists who  had  fled  for  shelter  to  its  territory.  And  this 
decision  was  taken  not  because  we  can  for  a  moment  be- 
lieve that  the  members  of  the  Federal  Council  approved 
of  the  methods  of  the  Communists,  but  because  they  be- 
lieved that  the  actions  of  these  persons,  however  hateful 
they  might  be,  were  prompted  by  political  motives,  and 
that  the  right  of  asylum  for  political  refugees  ought  to  be 
kept  inviolate. 

But,  it  has  been  said  by  Lord  Stanley  ^  that  "the  prin- 
ciple of  non-surrender  for  political  offences  being  con- 
ceded, it  is  however  clear  that  immunity  from  punishment 
should  not  be  granted  to  those  who,  not  political  refugees 
properly  so-called,  have  committed  murders,  or  other 
grievous  crimes  in  furtherance  of  some  political  object 
when  a  state  of  recognized  war  or  open  revolt  has  not  ex- 
isted." It  is  contended  that  "mankind  turns  with  disgust 
and  reprobation  from  the  inhuman  use  of  assassination  as 
a  means  in  the  furtherance  of  a  political  object."  Admitted 
that  this  is  so.  But  is  not  the  case  of  the  Russian  nihilists 
altogether  a  peculiar  one  ?  There  is  a  fable  which  tells  that 
an  eagle  once  seized  the  cub  of  a  fox  and  carried  it  away 
in  its  talons,  and  that  the  fox  in  her  desperation  took  a 
firebrand  to  throw  into  the  eagle's  nest  in  order  to  force 
him  to  let  go  her  young.  Shall  we  condemn  the  barbarity 
of  casting  a  firebrand  into  the  nest  of  an  eagle  and  forget 
the  cruel  act  which  provoked  such  retaliation?  Shall  we 
have  eyes  to  see  only  the  inhuman  methods  of  the  nihilist 
fox  and  forget  the  inhumanities  of  the  autocrat  eagle? 
Shall  we  forget  the  silent  hosts  of  martyrs  who  have  wet- 


'See  for  this  and  following  quotations  Moore  on  Extradition. 


H;V  W>c 


A  PROTEST  AGAINST  THE  RUSSIAN  TREATY.  1 25 

ted  the  snows  of  Siberia  with  their  blood?  Shall  we  for- 
get the  mental,  the  moral,  and,  as  some  say,  the  physical 
torture  inflicted  by  Russian  jailers  on  their  victims? 
Shall  we  forget  the  flogging  of  cultivated 
men,  aye,  and  women?  A  hundred  blows  of 
the  lash  on  a  frail  and  shrinking  woman's  K.'f  »^e 
form!  Shall  we  forget  the  barbarous  treatment  of 
the  Jews  whom  the  gloomy  despot,  who  sits  on  Russia's 
throne,  is  persecuting  in  obedience  to  his  fancied  mission 
on  behalf  of  the  orthodox  faith  ?  The  heart  of  every  lover 
of  his  kind  bleeds  within  him  when  he  witnesses  such  cru- 
elties as  these.  We  cannot  change  the  course  of  the  Rus- 
sian Czar.  It  is  not  legitimate,  we  are  informed,  to  in- 
terfere in  the  internal  affairs  of  a  foreign  state.  If  Russia 
were  a  small  state,  like  one  of  the  Balkan  Principalities, 
the  whole  civilized  world  would  long  since  have  inter- 
fered in  its  internal  affairs.  But,  in  the  case  of  Russia, 
this  is  impossible.  The  Czar  is  too  mighty,  and  we  are 
too  far  away  to  bring  aught  but  feeble  pressure  to  bear. 
But,  if  we  cannot  punish  the  tyrant,  neither  should  we  as- 
sist in  punishing  those  whom  his  tyranny  has  Aiven  to 
desperation.  The  fact  is  that  in  Russia  autocracy  and  ni- 
hilism are  engaged  in  a  life  and  death  duel.  And  we  may 
well  take  the  ground  of  observing  at  least  neutrality  be- 
tween them.  If  the  Russian  government  can  apprehend 
those  who  attack  its  murderous  despotism  with  murder- 
ous weapons,  we  cannot  intervene  to  save  them.  But,  if 
those  whom  it  pursues  make  good  their  escape  to  our 
shores,  neither  in  that  case  should  we  interfere  to  help 
save  the  Russian  despotism.  The  Nihilists,  moreover,  it 
should  be  remembered,  do  not  sanction  assassination  as  a 
political  weapon,  except  under  desperate  circumstances 
like  theirs.  When  Guiteau  shot  the  President,  the  organ 
of  the  extreme  Radical  Party  spoke  out  in  the  strongest 


126  THE   RIGHT   OF   POLITICAL   ASYLUM. 

condemnation  of  the  act,  saying  that,  in  a  free  country, 
such  methods  ought  not  for  a  moment  to  be  tolerated. 
The  Russian  Nihihsts  have  solemnly  and  repeatedly  de- 
clared that  they  will  lay  down  their  arms  the  moment  the 
Emperor  grants  representative  government  to  his  people. 
Representative  government  is  what  they  demand.  This 
is  the  aim  which  constitutes  the  objective  point  of  their 
agitation.  But  the  desire  for  representative  government 
is  a  political  motive,  if  ever  there  was  one.  And  hence,  I 
take  the  ground  that  Russian  refugees,  even  when  they 
have  been  guilty  of  an  attempt  on  the  life  of  the  Czar, 
should  be  regarded  as  political  offenders,  and,  under  the 
rule  accepted  by  all  civilized  nations,  should  not  be  extra- 
dited. 

"But  this  argument  by  no  means  exhausts  the  case.  Let 
us  not  forget  that  what  we  are  asked  to  do  is  not  to  sur- 
render those  whose  guilt  is  established,  but  those  against 
whom  a  prima  facie  case  can  be  made  out  on  evidence 
furnished  by  Russian  officials.  In  extradition  cases  the 
presumption  is  always  in  favor  of  the  demanding  govern- 
ment, as  appears  in  the  fact  that  the  demanding  govern- 
ment is  allowed  to  produce  documentary  evidence  and  wit- 
nesses, while  the  accused  person  is  not  allowed  documen- 
tary evidence,  but  must  rely  solely  upon  his  witnesses. 
How  then  shall  a  Russian  refugee  in  this  country  procure 
witnesses  to  establish  his  innocence  ?  All  that  is  necessary 
to  extradite  him,  is  that  a  prima  facie  case  be  made  out 
against  him  on  such  evidence  as  is  furnished  by  Russian 
officials.  And,  therefore,  it  is  extremely  important  to 
know  what  value  can  be  assigned  to  such  evidence." 

Now  here  I  am  compelled  to  allude  to  a  very  dark  side 
in  the  picture  of  Russian  life.  The  curse  of  Russian  life 
is  venality.  I  quote  from  Leroy  Beaulieu,  who  lived  in 
Russia,  had  access  to  the  best  sources  of  information,  and 


A  PROTEST  AGAINST  THE  RUSSIAN  TREATY.  1 27 

whose  work  on  the  Empire  of  the  Czar§  is  considered  an 
authority. 

In  his  second  volume  he  says :  "From  the  time  of  Peter 
the  Great  to  that  of  Alexander  the  Third  the  administra- 
tion, the  finances,  the  army,  the  whole  public  service  has 
been  a  prey  to  peculation,  malversation,  fraud  and  corrup- 
tion in  all  its  forms.  If  one  desires  to  be  understood  by 
an  official,  it  is  necessary,  says  the  proverb,  to  talk  ruble." 
There  is  a  saying  among  the  people  that  "in  Russia  ev- 
erybody steals."  He  tells  the  story  of  a  doctor  who  was 
examining  a  conscript  and  who  said  to  him,  "I  know  that 
you  are  sick  and  ought  to  be  excused  from  serving,  but 
unless  you  pay  me  I  will  declare  you  sound."  He  tells  us 
that,  at  the  close  of  the  late  Russo-Turkish  War  enormous 
frauds  having  been  discovered  on  the  part  of  contractors 
who  had  furnished  clothing  and  provisions  to  the  army, 
the  government  did  not  dare  to  bring  the  offenders  to 
trial  on  account  of  the  complicity  of  high  functionaries  in 
the  nefarious  practices.  The  ruble,  he  says,  opens  the 
gates  of  the  imperial  palaces  as  well  as  the  bureaus  of  the 
lowest  employes  of  the  province.  Grand  Dukes,  placed  at 
the  head  of  the  army  and  the  navy,  hardly  inspire  more 
confidence  than  the  ordinary  Bureaucrats.  Integrity  and 
disinterested  conduct  are  almost  always  regarded  as  ex- 
ceptional. Neither  rank  nor  birth  protect  from  suspicion. 
Even  the  immediate  surroundings  of  the  sovereign  are  not 
always  exempt  from  it.  But  it  is  especially  the  agents 
of  the  police  that  have  acquired  an  evil  reputation  for 
bribe-taking  and  corrupt  practices.  Many  of  them  are  ex- 
tremely ignorant.  In  an  inquiry  instituted  at  the  begin- 
ning of  the  present  reign,  it  was  found,  that  a  large  num- 
ber, even  of  the  police  of  St.  Petersburg,  could  not  cor- 
rectly write  their  own  name.  They  are  under-paid.  They 
wield  enormous  power — especially  the  secret  police,  the 

• 


128  THE  RIGHT  OF   POLITICAL  ASYLUM. 

agents  of  the  infamous  Third  Section  which  has  been 
aboHshed  in  name,  but  not  in  fact — and  they  use  their 
power  to  terrorize  and  blackmail  the  innocent  and  the 
guilty  alike.  Now,  it  is  on  the  evidence  furnished  by 
such  officials,  or  by  witnesses  controlled  and  influenced  by 
them,  that  a  prima  facie  case  against  Russian  refugees 
in  this  country  will  be  made  out.  In  view  of  the  facts 
stated,  can  we  have  any  confidence  in  evidence  that  comes 
from  such  a  source,  especially  if  we  remember  that  it  is 
the  interest  of  the  Russian  officials  to  display  zeal  on  be- 
half of  their  government  by  dragging  into  their  net  as 
many  of  its  opponents  as  possible,  be  they  guilty  or  not^ 
whenever  an  occasion  presents  itself  to  do  so. 

But,  it  has  been  said  on  the  part  of  the  defenders  of  the 
treaty — and  the  greatest  possible  stress  is  laid  on  this 
point — that  the  evidence,  in  extradition  cases,  must  be 
such  as,  according  to  the  laws  of  the  place  where  the  fu- 
gitive is  found,  would  justify  his  commitment  for  trial  if 
the  crime  charged  had  there  been  perpetrated.  In  other 
words,  if  a  Russian,  accused  of  an  attempt  upon  the  life 
of  the  Czar,  be  found  in  the  state  of  New  York,  he  may 
not  be  surrendered  unless  the  evidence  produced  would 
suffice  to  secure  his  commitment  for  trial  according  to 
the  laws  of  the  state  of  New  York.  Granted  that  this  is 
so ;  yet  the  proof  required  for  commitment  is  much  weaker 
than  that  required  for  conviction.  The  cardinal  distinc- 
tion between  commitment  and  conviction  must  not  be  lost 
sight  of.  Our  magistrates  need  to  have  before  them  only 
such  proof  as  would  justify  them  in  committing.  And 
what  sort  of  proof  may  that  be  ?  Chief-Justice  Marshall 
said,  'T  certainly  should  not  require  the  proof  which 
would  be  necessary  to  convict  a  person  on  a  trial  in  chief. 
I  should  not  even  require  that  which  would  absolutely 
convince    my    own    mind    of    his    guilt.    But    I  ought 


A  PROTEST  AGAINST  THE  RUSSIAN  TREATY.  1 29 

to  require,  and  should  require  that  probable  cause 
be  shown."  Or,  as  an  English  Attorney-General  put  it  in 
the  House  of  Commons,  'The  laws  of  this  country  require 
that  a  person  shall  be  committed  only  on  such  evidence  as, 
if  uncontradicted,  would  lead  to  the  conclusion  that  he  is 
guilty."  Now,  herein  lies  the  gist  of  the  whole  matter. 
Extradition  in  its  operation  is  equivalent  to  commitment. 
Commitment  is  only  warranted  when  the  accused  person, 
after  he  has  been  committed,  has  an  opportunity  of  contra- 
dicting the  evidence  which  if  it  remained  uncontradicted 
would  have  convicted  him;  or,  in  other  words,  if,  after 
commitment,  a  fair  trial  is  accorded  to  him.  Now  this, 
it  seems  to  me,  is  the  strong  point,  the  ineluctable  point, 
the  invulnerable  point  of  our  protest  against  this  treaty. 
that  a  fair  trial  is  not  accorded  in  Russia  to  a  political  of- 
fender after  he  has  been  extradited.  Everyone  knows 
what  the  Russian  procedure  is  in  such  cases.  The  per- 
son charged  with  an  attempt  upon  the  life  of  the  Czar  is 
summoned  before  a  court  martial,  or  a  special  commission 
He  is  deprived  of  the  right  of  trial  by  jury.  At  his  trial 
the  pubHc  are  not  admitted.  The  newspapers  are  not  per- 
mitted to  report  the  proceedings,  or  such  reports  as  are 
allowed  to  appear  are  supervised  by  the  authorities.  The 
accused  person  is  not  confronted  with  the  witnesses  that 
testify  against  him,  and  he  is  denied  the  right  of  appeal. 
Oh,  the  inconceivable  arbitrariness,  cruelty  and  injustice 
of  such  procedure !  Of  what  avail  is  it  then,  that  the  in- 
itial part  of  the  proceedings  takes  place  according  to  all 
the  forms  of  law  in  an  Anglo-Saxon  community,  if  the 
latter  and  graver  part  of  the  proceedings  takes  place  in  a 
community  in  which  the  safeguards  of  law  are  trampled 
under  foot !  Of  what  avail  that  commitment  takes  place 
according  to  the  laws  of  the  state  of  New  York,  if  convic- 
tion takes  place  according  to  Russian  code!    This  com- 


130  THE  RIGHT   OF    POLITICAL   ASYLUM. 

bination  of  commitment  in  America  and  conviction  in 
Russia  seems  to  me  like  that  hideous  being  described  by 
poets,  half  woman  and  half  fish.  Fair  it  is,  and  gracious, 
and  seductive  in  the  part  that  emerges  above  the  water, 
but  foul  and  abhorrent  in  the  part  that  is  concealed  from 
view.  So  that  part  of  the  proceedings  which  takes  place 
on  this  side  of  the  water  is  fair  enough  and  right  enough, 
and  therefore  has  seduced  many  minds  to  give  their  con- 
sent to  such  a  treaty  as  this.  But,  the  part  of  the  proceed- 
ings that  takes  place  beyond  the  waters  is  brutal  and  ab- 
horrent. And  this  is  all  the  more  true  because,  when  we 
have  once  extradited  an  accused  person,  he  disappears 
from  our  sight.  We  may  never  know  what  has  become  of 
him.  He  may  have  been  executed  within  twenty-four 
hours  after  his  so-called  trial.  He  may  have  been  extra- 
dited on  a  charge  of  attempted  murder,  which,  however, 
cannot  be  sustained,  and  sentenced  to  death  on  a  totally 
different  charge.  He  may,  if  his  innocence  be  so  absolute- 
ly clear  that  even  a  Russian  court  martial  cannot  convict 
him,  nevertheless  be  deported  to  Siberia  by  that  unique 
and  terrible  engine  of  despotism  which  is  called  Adminis- 
trative Process.  And  whatever  is  done  is  done  in  the 
dark,  in  silence, — we  shall  never  be  the  wiser  for  it.  We 
have  done  our  duty  toward  the  Russian  Czar.  We  have 
extradited  the  men  he  wants.  He  will  look  to  the  rest. 
There  is  no  provision  made  that  the  United  States  Lega- 
tion shall  be  notified  of  the  fate  of  extradited  persons.  To 
request  such  notification  would  be  contrary  to  interna- 
tional courtesy,  since  it  would  seem  to  imply  a  suspicion 
of  the  judicial  proceedings  of  a  friendly  power.  And 
here,  indeed,  the  weak  point  of  this  treaty  is  fully  disclos- 
ed to  view.  Extradition  treaties,  it  has  been  said,  are 
based  on  the  principle  of  good  faith.  With  countries, 
like  Belgium,  on  whose  good  faith  we  can  rely,  let  us 


A  PROTEST  AGAINST  THE  RUSSIAN  TREATY.  I3I 

have  such  treaties ;  with  countries  in  which  exist  the  guar- 
antees of  individual  Hberty ;  with  countries  which  have  the 
habeas  corpus,  as  Russia  has  not;  with  countries  which 
grant  jury  trials  to  political,  as  well  as  to  all  other  offend- 
ers ;  with  countries  in  which,  commitment  being  based  on 
evidence  which,  if  uncontradicted,  will  ensure  conviction, 
the  accused  has  an  opportunity  to  contradict  such  evidence 
and  thus  escape  conviction.  But,  with  a  country  like  Rus- 
sia, in  which  all  these  safeguards  are  wanting,  on  whose 
good  faith  we  cannot  rely,  I  do  not  see  how  we  can  enter 
into  such  a  compact  as  this. 

There  remain  two  minor  points  to  which  I  must  briefly 
advert.  It  has  been  said,  in  defence  of  ex-Secretary  Bay- 
ard, who  entered  upon  the  negotiation  of  an  extradition 
treaty  with  Russia  six  years  ago,  that  its  object  was 
merely  to  accord  to  the  Czar  the  same  protection  against 
murder  which  is  accorded  to  any  ordinary  citizen ;  that  it 
did  not  confer  any  special  privilege  upon  the  Czar,  but 
merely  assured  him  the  same  rights  as  would  be  enjoyed 
by  any  of  his  subjects.  But  this  contention  ignores  the 
fact  that,  in  Russia,  capital  punishment  for  ordinary  mur- 
der has  been  abolished  since  1753,  and  that  the  death  pen- 
alty is  applied  solely  in  the  case  of  political  criminals. 
Hence,  it  is  not  true  that,  by  the  terms  of  the  treaty,  the 
Czar  is  merly  assimilated  to  any  ordinary  citizen,  the  pun- 
ishment for  an  attempt  upon  his  life  being  severer  than 
that  which  would  follow  an  attempt  on  the  life  of  any  of 
his  subjects.  Even  a  parricide  is  not  subject  to  the  death 
penalty  in  Russia.  A  czaricide  is.  And,  further,  the  de- 
fence ignores  the  fact  upon  which,  as  I  have  shown,  every- 
thing in  this  argument  hinges,  that  a  political  criminal  is 
tried  in  unusual  courts.  And  it  is  a  maxim  of  Interna- 
tional Law,  enunciated  at  the  session  of  the  Institute  of 
International  Law  in  1880,  at  Oxford,  that,  in  every  case, 


132  THE   RIGHT   OF   POLITICAL   ASYLUM. 

extradition  mtist  not  be  granted  for  a  crime  which  has,  at 
the  same  time,  the  nature  of  a  poUtical  crime  and  of  a 
crime  under  the  ordinary  law,  unless  the  state  making  the 
requisition  gives  the  assurance  that  the  person  surren- 
dered shall  not  be  tried  by  unusual  courts.  It  is  upon  the 
ground  that  in  Russia  political  criminals  are  tried  in  un- 
usual courts  that  we  rest  our  protest  against  the  treaty. 

But  it  has  been  said  by  some  that  it  is  to  the  interest  of 
the  United  States  to  grant  extradition  to  Russia,  in  order 
that  we  may  secure  extradition  in  return  if  the  life  of  any 
of  our  Presidents  should  ever  again  be  attempted  by  an 
assassin.  To  this  I  reply  by  asking  whether  there  really 
exists  a  parallel  between  the  two  countries  in  this  respect. 
In  the  first  place,  let  me  call  attention  to  the  fact  that  both 
in  the  case  of  Guiteau  and  Booth  the  assassins  were  appre- 
hended before  they  had  had  time  to  escape  across  the  bor- 
der. There  is  here  a  great  difference  between  a  country 
like  ours  and  a  country  like  Russia.  In  Russia  the  police 
are  isolated.  The  people,  as  a  rule,  do  not  lift  a  finger  to 
aid  them  in  their  search.  And  it  is  precisely  for  this  rea- 
son that  so  many  of  the  Revolutionists  escape.  In  this 
country,  almost  every  citizen  would  constitute  himself  a 
special  officer  of  police  to  pursue  and  apprehend  the  mur- 
derer of  a  President.  The  people  themselves  frown  upon 
violent  methods,  either  on  the  part  of  the  governed  or  of 
their  governors.  The  people  themselves  will  stamp  out 
such  methods  if  ever  it  be  attempted  to  introduce  them 
amongst  us.  But,  secondly,  even  assuming  that  another 
Guiteau  should  have  succeeded  in  making  good  his  flight, 
should  have  avoided  all  those  countries  with  which  we 
have  extradition  treaties,  and  should  have  found  shelter 
in  Russia,  do  we  need  to  learn  from  the  lips  of  a  Russian 
Empress  the  humane  rule  that  "it  is  better  to  let  ten 
guilty  persons  escape  than  to  punish  one  that  is  innocent." 


A  PROTEST  AGAINST  THE  RUSSIAN  TREATY.  1 33 

It  is  for  US  to  consider  whether  we  are  wilHng  to  aid  in 
punishing  those  who  may  be  innocent,  whether  we  are 
wilHng  to  hand  over  to  Russian  court  martials  and  special 
commissions  those  who  will  be  denied  the  ordinary  means 
of  establishing  their  innocence.  This  is  the  sole  question 
which  we  are  called  upon  to  decide. 

It  is  difficult  to  imagine  what  may  have  been  the  mo- 
tives which  have  influenced  American  diplomacy  in  the 
negotiation  of  this  treaty.  It  has  been  suggested  by  an 
organ  of  the  late  administration  in  this  city  that  it  would 
be  greatly  to  the  interest  of  the  United  States  to  be  able 
to  rely  on  the  powerful  backing  of  the  Russian  fleet  in  any 
designs  we  may  have  respecting  the  annexation  of  Cuba, 
or  of  Canada,  or  of  the  Islands  of  the  Pacific.  It  has  been 
suggested  by  others  that  the  friendship  of  the  Russian 
government  is  of  importance  to  us  in  the  Behring  Sea  con- 
troversy. Is  then  this  treaty  a  Yankee  bargain  ?  Are  the 
Refugee-Revolutionists  to  be  thrown  as  a  sop  to  the  Rus- 
sian Cerberus,  in  order  that  he  may  show  his  teeth  on  our 
side?  I  cannot  believe  for  a  moment  that  this  has  been 
the  motive.    The  admission  would  be  too  humiliating. 

Is  it  then  ignorance  of  Russian  conditions?  This 
seems,  on  the  face  of  it,  a  more  probable  explanation.  It 
appears  to  be  difficult  for  many  Americans,  even  for  some 
American  statesmen,  to  realize  conditions  so  utterly  at  va- 
riance with  those  to  which  they  are  accustomed, — meth- 
ods of  judicial  procedure  so  utterly  opposed  to  what  we 
regard  as  first  principles.  And  what  men  cannot  imagine 
they  are  apt  to  ignore.  What  they  cannot  realize  they 
often  treat  as  if  it  did  not  exist. 

Or  has  perhaps  the  uneasy  feeling  that  widely  pervades 
the  American  people  been  operative  in  the  negotiation  of 
this  treaty,  the  feeling  namely  that  Anarchism  is  a  pest, 
that  Anarchists  are  enemies  of  mankind,  that  the  sooner 


134  THE  RIGHT  OF   POLITICAL  ASYLUM. 

we  can  rid  ourselves  of  them  the  better ;  that,  if  the  Czar 
of  Russia  is  wilhng  to  take  them  off  our  hands,  we  should 
be  glad  to  deliver  them  over  to  him  to  deal  with  them  as 
he  may  see  fit !  But  this  sentiment  is  most  unjust,  as  aj>- 
plied  to  the  Russian  Revolutionists.  They  are  not,  a  I 
have  already  said,  to  be  classed  with  the  Anarchists.  Se- 
verely as  we  may  censure  their  methods,  they  are  not  ene- 
mies of  law  and  order.  On  the  contrary  what  they  aim  at 
is  the  establishment  in  their  country  of  law  and  order,  in 
place  of  arbitrary  and  capricious  despotism.  What  they 
demand  are  those  same  free  institutions  which  we  have 
long  enjoyed.  But,  even  if  they  were  Anarchists  of  the 
most  detestable  kind,  I  should  still  maintain  that  we  may 
not,  in  their  case,  set  aside,  or  connive  at  the  setting  aside 
by  others  of  those  invaluable  safeguards  of  justice  with- 
out which  the  innocent  may  at  any  time  be  merged  with 
the  guilty.  I  should  still  protest  that  we  ought  not  to  de- 
liver over  even  Anarchists  to  a  power  which  will  not  give 
them  a  chance  to  prove  their  innocence,  if  they  be  inno- 
cent; which  will  not  grant  them  trial  by  jury;  which  will 
not  confront  them  with  the  witnesses  that  testify  against 
them,  which  denies  them  the  right  of  appeal.  But,  as  I 
have  said,  the  Russian  Revolutionists,  as  a  class,  are  by 
no  means  to  be  stigmatized  as  Anarchists.  They  desire 
freedom.  They  look  to  the  United  States  to  cheer  them 
on  in  their  attempts  to  secure  freedom.  Shall  the  United 
States  league  itself  with  their  oppressors  ? 

But,  it  is  said,  of  what  use  is  it  to  protest?  The  treaty 
is  all  but  signed  and  sealed.  It  is  .true,  the  treaty  has  been 
discussed  and  adopted  in  executive  session  by  the  Senate. 
The  doors  have  been  closed  against  the  people,  and  the 
proceedings  have  been  shrouded  in  mystery  and  secrecy. 
But,  with  perfect  respect  for  the  Senate,  I  venture  to  as- 
sert that  the  American  people  are  still  the  rulers  in  this 


A  PROTEST  AGAINST  THE  RUSSIAN  TREATY.  1 35 

land,  and  that  if  the  American  people  are  opposed  to  this 
treaty  and  desire  to  see  it  abrogated,  the  Senate  will  not 
resist  their  will.  And  already,  the  waters  of  public  opin- 
ion are  being  stirred  in  this  matter.  In  Boston,  old-time 
abolitionists,  whose  names  have  acquired  a  national  repu- 
tation, have  spoken  with  no  uncertain  sound.  The  Leg- 
islature of  the  state  of  New  York,  during  the  past  week, 
has  adopted  a  resolution  condemning  the  treaty ;  and  some 
of  the  most  conservative  citizens  of  our  own  metropolis 
have  echoed  this  protest.  I  trust  that  this  agitation  will 
go  on.  I  believe  that  the  public  need  only  to  be  instructed 
as  to  the  issues  really  at  stake  in  order  to  take  the  right 
attitude  on  this  question.  I  believe  that  our  fellow-citi- 
zens will  not  lend  themselves  as  auxiliaries  to  the  Czar 
in  hunting  fugitives  on  American  soil.  I  believe  that  the 
ship  does  not  sail  the  sea  which  is  destined  to  carry  back 
such  fugitives  to  the  Russian  shores.  And  I  denounce 
this  treaty  as  repugnant  to  the  tradition  of  American 
freedom,  as  contrary  to  the  best  interests  of  civilized  man- 
kind, as  an  unnatural  compact  between  the  freest  gov- 
ernment on  the  face  of  this  earth  and  the  most  arbitrary 
— a  compact  which,  if  it  had  been  signed  and  sealed  a 
thousand  times,  will  yet  be  nullified  by  the  indignant  re- 
probation of  an  enlightened  and  liberty-loving  people. 


AMERICA'S  COMPACT   WITH   DESPOT- 
ISM IN  RUSSIA* 

By  William  M.  Salter. 

We  have  not  only  duties  as  individuals,  we  have  duties 
as  citizens.  Here  in  America  we  are  citizens  of  a  free 
State,  and  what  our  government  does  it  is  supposed  that 
we  do,  too,  or  at  least  a  majority  of  us.  Particularly  is 
this  true  when  our  government  deals  with  foreign  gov- 
ernments ;  for  in  this  the  people  act  as  a  body ;  we  stand 
before  the  world  as  a  unit,  and  we  cannot  say  that  our 
representatives  have  done  so  and  so,  and  we  have  no  part 
in  it.  If  we  do  not  protest,  we  are  supposed  to  agree. 
Happily,  we  may  suppose  that  our  government  ordinarily 
does  right,  that  our  representatives  act  wisely,  judici- 
ously,more  wisely  than  we,  less  well-informed, 
less  skilled  in  public  affairs,  would  act  ourselves,  and 
that,  as  standing  in  the  place  of  the  fathers  of  the  repub- 
lic, they  are  animated  by  the  love  of  liberty  and  the  hatred 
of  oppression.  But  it  is  possible  that  they  should  err,  it 
is  possible  that  they  should  temporarily  even  forget  the 
great  principles  for  which  a  free  people  should  stand,  and 
when  this  happens  it  is  not  only  the  right,  it  is  the  duty, 
of  the  private  citizen  to  protest. 

In  my  judgment  such  a  situation  has  now  arisen.  The 
United  States  is  now  entering  into  a  compact  with  a  des- 
potic government  which  cannot  be  sanctioned  by,  and 
could  not  have  originated  with,  those  who  are  supremely 


*A  lecture  before  the  Society  for  Ethical  Culture  of  Philadel- 
phia, Sunday,  March  26,  1893. 

136 


COMPACT  WITH  DESPOTISM  IN  RUSSIA.  1 37 

solicitous  for  the  cause  of  freedom  and  the  rights  of  man, 
unless,  indeed,  they  are  unaware  of  what  they  are  doing. 
I  refer  to  the  treaty  with  Russia.  To  speak  exactly,  it  is 
not  a  treaty  with  Russia,  but  with  despotism  in  Russia. 
The  Russian  people  are  not  represented  in  their  govern- 
ment ;  it  is  not  a  government  by  them,  but  over  them ;  it 
does  not  exist  by  their  consent,  nor  does  it  serve  their  in- 
terest. Force  established  it,  and  force  maintains  it.  The 
Russian  people  are  not  without  lovable  traits,  and  noth- 
ing that  I  shall  say  must  be  construed  against  them ;  could 
a  treaty  be  made  with  them  to  protect  them  from  oppres- 
sion, no  one  would  object;  but  the  aim  of  this  treaty,  in 
which  our  government  has  consciously  or  unconsciously 
acquiesced,  is  to  make  the  grip  of  the  oppressor  still 
stronger  upon  them. 

The  treaty  of  which  I  speak — and  which  only  awaits 
an  exchange  of  ratifications  to  become  law — is  doubtless 
in  its  main  parts  made  up  of  excellent  provisions,  or 
such  as  would  be,  in  case  it  were  a  treaty  with  a  civilized 
and  constitutional  state.  That  men  should  be  punished 
for  the  crimes  they  have  committed,  for  murder,  robbery, 
forgery,  and  the  like,  and  that,  if  they  escape  from  the 
country  in  which  they  committed  them,  they  should  be  re- 
turned there  from  the  country  to  which  they  have  fled,  is 
in  the  interests  of  civilization.  The  United  States  has 
many  such  treaties,  and  should  have  them,  so  far  as  other 
countries  have  safeguards  by  which  the  accused  person 
is  secured  a  fair  trial.  But  almost  all  treaties  between 
civilized  countries  contain  also  the  provision  that  those 
guilty  or  accused  of  poHtical  crime  shall  be  regarded  dif- 
ferently, and  shall  not  be  returned  by  the  country  in  which 
they  have  taken  refuge  to  the  country  in  which  the  crime 
was  committed.  Tlie  crime  may  be  outwardly  the  same 
as  common  crime ;  it  may  be  taking  life  or  destroying 


138  THE  RIGHT  OF   POLITICAL  ASYLUM. 

property,  but  if  it  is  done  in  civil  war  or  in  the  course  of 
insurrection  or  political  commotions,  it  is  placed  in  a  dis- 
tinct category,  and  though  it  may  be  punished  more  se- 
verely than  common  crime  in  the  country  in  which  it  takes 
place,  it  is  viewed  with  different  eyes  outside.  Govern- 
ments, it  is  felt,  are  fallible  institutions ;  they  may  even  be 
unjust,  oppressive,  iniquitous;  they  have  not  the  sanctity 
about  them,  that  immediate  unconditional  claim  on  our 
respect,  which  human  life,  in  itself  considered,  has;  of- 
fences against  them  may  be  serious  to  the  government 
concerned,  but  not  necessarily  to  the  outside  world.  In 
any  case  the  company  of  modern  civilized  peoples  is 
agreed  that  there  should  be  no  extradition  of  political 
criminals.  We  ourselves  as  a  people  were  once  engaged 
in  a  political  crime;  our  forefathers  were  guilty  of  trea- 
son to  the  English  government;  they  killed  English  offi- 
cers ;  had  they  been  unsuccessful,  some  of  them,  the  lead- 
ers, would  probably  have  been  executed.  But  we  can 
hardly  regard  the  crime  as  a  heinous  one,  nor  did  the 
world  at  large  think  so  at  the  time.  To  attack  men  as  rep- 
resentatives of  a  government  is  a  totally  different  thing 
from  attacking  them  as  private  individuals;  to  kill  from 
private  malice  is  common  murder ;  to  kill  to  overthrow  a 
government  may  be  wise,  may  be  unwise,  may  be  right, 
may  be  wrong — however  this  may  be,  it  is  another  sort  of 
act,  and  is  differently  treated  in  the  law  of  nations.  The 
common  custom  is  for  the  contracting  governments  to 
agree  to  give  up  ordinary  offenders,  and  either  to  ex- 
pressly state,  or  to  imply  by  silence,  that  political  offend- 
ers shall  not  be  given  up,  leaving  it  to  the  government  on 
whom  a  request  is  made  to  say,  in  any  doubtful  case,  to 
which  of  the  two  categories  a  given  offence  belongs. 

Now,  the  treaty  with  Russia  takes  it  out  of  the  power 
of  the  United  States  government  to  decide  whether  cer- 


COMPACT  WITH  DESPOTISM  IN  RUSSIA.  1 39 

tain  offences  in  Russia  belong  to  the  category  of  political 
offences  or  not.    This  is  its  language : 

"An  attempt  upon  the  life  of  the  head  of  either  government, 
or  against  that  of  any  member  of  his  family,  when  such  attempt 
comprises  the  act  either  of  murder,  or  of  assassination,  or  of 
poisoning,  shall  not  be  considered  a  political  offence,  or  an  act 
connected  with  such  an  offence." 

That  is,  if  an  attempt  is  made  on  the  Hfe  of  the  Czar, — 
for  we  may  leave  out  of  account  an  attack  upon  the  head 
of  our  own  government,  as  no  such  offender  would  be 
likely  to  go  to  Russia  for  refuge, — and  if  the  offender 
comes  to  America,  then  even  if  our  government — that  is, 
the  magistrate  or  judges  before  whom  the  case  comes  up 
— is  convinced  that  the  case  comes  properly  under  the 
category  of  political  crime,  and  is  not  common  murder,  it 
would  none  the  less  have  to  call  it  common  murder  and 
to  extradite  the  criminal.  It  would  have  no  choice,  for 
its  hands  are  tied  by  the  definition  of  the  treaty.  It  can- 
not say  the  crime  may  be  simple  murder  or  it  may  have 
a  political  character,  and  then  proceed  to  examine  the  evi- 
dence, and,  according  as  it  preponderates  the  one  way  or 
the  other,  give  up  the  offender  or  refuse  to  give  him  up. 
The  United  States  has  already  prejudged  this  question; 
according  to  it  there  is  no  possibility  of  an  attempt  on  the 
life  of  the  Czar  that  may  be  properly  reckoned  a  political 
offence,  and  no  offender  of  this  description  that  shall  not 
be  given  up.  This  is  accordingly  the  ground  I  take,  and 
I  trust  it  will  be  distinctly  observed.  I  do  not  say  that 
attempts  on  the  life  of  the  Czar  may  not  be  murder  in  the 
ordinary  sense,  and  that  offenders  of  this  sort  should  not 
be  given  up  (supposing  for  the  moment  that  Russia  is  a 
fit  country  to  treat  with  at  all)  ;  I  do  say  that  the  Ukiited 
States  should  have  the  right  to  sit  in  judgment  upon  a 
given  case  and  say  to  which  category  it  belongs.    Under 


140  THE   RIGHT   OF   POLITICAL   ASYLUM. 

the  veil  of  secrecy,  under  a  cloak;  of  darkness  absolutely 
impenetrable  until  within  a  few  days,  it  has  done  (or  will 
have  done  when  the  treaty  is  promulgated)  something 
that  no  free  nation  on  the  face  of  the  earth  has  been  ig- 
noble enough  to  do  ( for  semi-despotic  Germany  alone  has 
a  treaty  with  Russia  to  be  compared  with  it)  ;  it  has  done 
what  England  would  scorn  to  do ;  it  has  abdicated  its  sov- 
ereign right — a  right  which  a  free  nation,  above  all, 
should  sacredly  guard — to  say  whether"  given  crimes  are 
political  or  are  not,  and  all  to  the  end  of  showing  its  sym- 
pathy with  the  Czar, — a  man  who,  were  he  on  the  Eng- 
lish throne,  would  (if  the  old  method  of  punishment  con- 
tinued) have  his  head  speedily  laid  on  the  block. 

But  will  some  one  hold  that  there  is  no  possibility  that 
an  attempt  to  assassinate  the  Czar  should  ever  have  such 
a  political  complexion  as  to  anywise  extenuate  it  or  take 
it  out  of  the  category  of  utterly  inexcusable  crime?  I 
think  we  should  say  this  (or  come  very  near  it)  of  the 
Queen  of  England,  or  of  any  President  of  the  United 
States,  that  we  have  ever  had,  or,  I  trust,  are  likely  to 
have ;  and  the  government  of  the  United  States  evidently 
thinks  that  its  head  and  the  head  of  the  Russian  govern- 
ment are  on  an  equality  in  this  respect,  for  it  says,  "An 
attempt  upon  the  life  of  the  head  of  either  government," 
as  if  the  two  were  on  a  par.  But  to  my  mind  this  con- 
founding of  unlike  personages  into  which  the  treaty  falls 
is  a  part  of  the  disgrace  of  it.  As  men  the  President  of 
the  United  States  and  the  Czar  of  Russia  are  equal,  and 
should  have  the  same  protection  of  their  rights;  but  as 
President  and  Czar,  the  one  is  a  friend,  the  other  a  foe, 
of  human  liberty.  The  consideration  that  is  due  to  our 
President,  or  to  any  head  of  a  constitutional  state,  is  not 
due  to  the  czar.  The  crime  that  would  have  nothing  to 
extenuate  it  if  directed  against  Mr.  Cleveland  or  Queen 


COMPACT  WITH  DESPOTISM  IN  RUSSIA.  I4I 

Victoria,  might  have  something  to  extenuate  it  if  directed 
against  Alexander  III,  or  any  heir  of  his  who  rules  in 
his  spirit.  I  say  simply  "might;"  whether  there  would 
be  any  extenuating  circumstances  is  a  question  of  fact, 
not  of  possibility ;  any  case,  if  unhappily  one  should  arise, 
would  have  to  be  judged  on  its  own  merits.  The  assassi- 
nation of  Alexander  III.  might,  of  course,  be  as  foul  a 
murder  as  that  of  President  Garfield ;  but  shall  we  there- 
fore say  that  it  could  not  have  a  different  character  ?  The 
United  States  government  virtually  says  so;  it  says  that 
the  assassination  of  a  Czar  is  ipso  facto  mere  common- 
law  murder.    Is  the  government  right  ? 

To  answer  this  we  have  to  look  to  history,  and  particu- 
larly to  the  Russian  situation.  The  moral  sense  of  hu- 
manity has  always  been  shocked  at  an  act  of  assassina- 
tion in  itself  considered,  more  so  than  at  open  murder, 
since  it  adds  an  element  of  secrecy  and  of  stealth  that  are 
peculiarly  abhorrent ;  but  almost  always  it  has  felt  that  if 
the  violence  was  against  an  enemy  of  freedom,  and  was 
done  to  serve  the  cause  of  freedom,  the  complexion  of  the 
deed  was  somewhat  changed.  When  we  read  in  the  third 
and  fourth  chapters  of  Judges  that,  to  free  Israel  from 
subjection  to  Canaanitish  princes,  Ehud  and  Jael  resorted 
to  stealth,  and  with  dagger  and  nail  killed  Eglon  and  Sis- 
era,  we  may  condemn  the  acts;  but  we  do  not  call  them 
common  murder, — and  Israel  glorified  them.  In  a  simi- 
lar way,  according  to  an  apocryphal  book,  Judith  struck 
down  Holofernes,  the  Assyrian  general,  first  bewitching 
him  by  her  beauty.  Or,  if  these  are  instances  from  bar- 
barous times,  what  shall  we  say  of  the  Greek  feeling 
about  Harmodius  and  Aristogeiton,  who  slew  the  Athen- 
ian general  Hipparchus?  Harmodius,  a  beautiful  youth, 
was  cut  down  on  the  spot,  and  Aristogeiton  was  soon  cap- 
tured and  tortured  to  death;  yet,  when  Hipparchus  was 


142  THE   RIGHT   OF   POLITICAL   ASYLUM. 

expelled  they  became  the  most  popular  of  Athenian  he- 
roes; their  statues  were  set  up  on  the  agora,  their  de- 
scendants were  exempted  from  public  burdens,  and  their 
names  were  celebrated  in  popular  songs  as  the  deliverers 
of  fair  Athens.  Whatever  we  may  think  of  Brutus's  act, 
however  foolish  or  however  criminal  we  may  call  it,  who 
will  say  there  was  nothing  to  extenuate  it, — that  it  was 
utterly  execrable,  that  it  belongs  to  the  same  category  as  a 
murder  in  a  street-brawl?  Mankind  has  passed  a  differ- 
ent judgment  upon  it, — at  least  that  part  of  mankind 
which  has  any  tincture  of  the  spirit  of  freedom.  So  we 
are  accustomed  to  deal  leniently  with  the  legendary  deliv- 
erer of  Switzerland,  who  shot  Gessler  from  an  ambus- 
cade; and  with  Charlotte  Corday,  who  killed  Marat  in 
his  bath.  The  great  writer  on  political  science,Bluntschli, 
says,  in  commenting  on  these  instances,  we  excuse  the 
murderer  when  he  commits  his  deed  to  free  a  people  from 
an  insufferable  tyranny,  against  which  there  is  no  other 
remedy;  when  Spinoza's  saying  is  applicable,  "One  must 
kill  tyrants  as  one  does  a  mad  dog."  ^ 

In  the  light  of  history,  then,  it  will  not  do  to  say  that  a 
crime  against  a  despot  cannot  possibly  have  such  a  com- 
plexion as  would  justify  us  in  regarding  it  as  different 
from  ordinary  crimes  against  the  person.  But  is  not  the 
day  of  despots  over?  it  may  be  asked.  Is  not  the  Czar 
simply  a  good,  benevolent  ruler,  doing  the  best  he  can 
for  his  poor  people  ? — so  that,  even  granting  what  I  have 
said,  is  it  not  without  application  to  the  present  case,  as 
in  Russia  there  is  no  political  oppression,  any  more  thaa 
in  the  United  States,  and  assassination  of  the  Czar  from 
political  motives  is  as  little  thinkable  as  assassination  of 
the  President  of  the  United  States?     Now,  against  the 


Tolitik,  pp.  20-21. 


COMPACT  WITH  DESPOTISM  IN  RUSSIA.  I43 

private  character  of  the  present  Czar  I  have  nothing  to 
say,  and  it  may  well  be  that  nothing  can  be  said.  He  is 
said  to  be  an  excellent  husband,  a  loving  father,  and  to 
have  an  antipathy  to  all  kinds  of  untruthfulness,  immor- 
ality, and  frivolity.  Even  were  this  not  so,  his  life  as  a 
private  man  is  as  sacred  as  that  of  any  other  man;  and 
were  it  assailed  as  the  lives  of  other  private  individuals 
are  assailed,  the  assailant  should  be  returned,  if  he  flies 
away, — provided,  that  is,  he  is  sure  of  a  fair  trial.  But 
the  Czar  is  not  a  private  individual  merely,  and  with  hii 
private  life  we  have  nothing  to  do.  Charles  L,  of  Eng- 
land, was  an  exemplary  man,  according  to  ordinary  stand- 
ards,— even  benevolent  and  of  great  purity  of  character; 
but  this  did  not  prevent  him  from  being  a  tyrant.  The 
question  is,  What  is  the  Czar  as  the  head  of  the  Russian 
government, — what  is  any  Czar,  so  long  as  the  present 
system  of  government  is  continued  ?  For  the  question  is 
not  a  personal  one  at  all.  There  is  an  ethics  of  govern- 
ment as  well  as  of  private  life ;  there  are  right  and  wrong 
ways  of  ruling,  and  to  rule  in  such  a  way  as  to  suppress 
the  liberties  of  the  people  is  a  high  crime,  according  to 
the  conscience  of  civilization-.  What  is  the  Czar  as  the 
Russian  government? — for,  according  to  the  Russian 
Constitution,  the  Czar  and  the  government  are  one  and 
the  same  thing. 

The  character  and  methods  of  the  Russian  government 
may,  perhaps,  best  be  indicated  by  stating  a  few  facts. 
In  1891  $200,000,000  were  spent  on  the  army  and  navy; 
$9,000,000  went  to  pay  the  personal  expenses  of  the  Czar, 
and  $2,892,000  were  set  aside  for  common  schools  for 
over  a  hundred  million  of  his  people.  (In  that  year  the 
United  States  spent  $140,000,000  on  common  schools  for 
sixty-five  million  of  people.)  There  are  some  assemblies 
elected  by  the  people,  but  these  assemblies  can  do  nothing 

• 


144  THE  RIGHT  OF   POLITICAL  ASYLUM. 

of  which  the  Czar  does  not  approve,  so  that  anything  Hke 
laws  really  representative  of  the  people's  will  do  not  ex- 
ist. The  press  is  under  strict  censorship.  From  1865  to 
1880  (during  the  so-called  liberal  administration  of  the 
predecessor  of  the  present  Czar),  the  Press  Council  gave 
one  hundred  and  sixty-seven  warnings  and  suspended 
fifty-two  newspapers.  1  There  is  scarcely  an  independent,, 
certainly  no  outspoken  liberal,  organ  to-day.  The  spirit 
of  Alexander  III.  is  practically  the  same  as  that  of 
Catherine  11. ,  who,  in  speaking  of  Radischev,  the  first 
Russian  liberal,  said  that  "worse  than  POngachev  [a  no- 
torious Russian  rebel]  he  praises  Franklin,"  and  who 
proceeded  to  sentence  him  to  death  for  publishing  his 
"Journey  from  St.  Petersburg  to  Moscow,"  which  drew 
a  gloomy  picture  of  the  state  of  Russia  at  the  time,  and 
demanded  as  a  remedy  representative  government,  the 
abolition  of  serfdom,  freedom  of  the  press  and  of  con- 
science, open  trial  by  jury,  etc.  (though  the  sentence  was 
commuted  to  exile  to  Siberia). 

Religion  is  no  more  free  than  the  press,  when  it  does 
not  please  the  Czar  to  have  it  so.  To  take  one  instance, 
the  Stundists  are  a  rapidly-growing  sect,  numbering  al- 
ready several  millions.  There  is  nothing  political  in  their 
constitution,  and  they  are  said  to  be  particularly  loyaL 
Their  views  are  Protestant  and  rationalistic,  with  ten- 
dencies towards  a  social  but  rarely  socialistic  re- 
formation. A  congress  of  orthodox  ecclesiastics 
a  year  or  two  ago  came  unanimously  to  this 
decision  with  reference  to  them, — viz.,  that  ser- 
mons and  propaganda  against  them  were  insufficient,  and 
that  it  was  necessary  to  have  the  help  of  the  police  for  the 
administrative  punishment  of  them.    The  Czar  backs  up 


'Noble's  "Russian  Revolt,"  p.  233. 


COMPACT  WITH  DESPOTISM  IN  RUSSIA.  I45 

these  bigots ;  he  is  practically,  if  not  technically,  the  head 
of  the  church,  and  punishes  those  who  attempt  to  leave  it. 
The  Stundists  he,  on  occasion,  imprisons,  flogs,  irons, 
deprives  of  their  civil  rights,  and  exiles  to  Siberia.  The 
story  of  the  persecution  of  the  Jews  is  well  known  to  you. 
Their  recent  expulsion  from  Moscow  was  an  almost  in- 
credible piece  of  barbarity.  In  one  quarter  of  the  city  it 
was  carried  out  by  foot-police,  mounted  Cossacks,  and 
firemen.  When  all  avenues  of  escape  had  been  closed,  the 
whole  quarter  was  ransacked,  apartments  were  forced 
open,  doors  were  smashed,  and  every  bedroom  searched, 
the  occupants  being  subjected  to  all  sorts  of  indignities. 
Then  seven  hundred  men,  women,  and  children  were 
dragged  at  dead  of  night  through  the  streets  to  the  police 
station,  and  there,  without  being  given  time  to  dress  them- 
selves, kept  in  noisome  and  overcrowded  confinement  for 
thirty-six  hours,  almost  all  without  food.  Such  is  the 
benevolent,  paternal  character  of  the  Russian  government. 
Mr.  Harold  Frederic,  who  tells  this  in  a  book  published 
last  year  with  the  title  "The  New  E'xodus,"  says  that  "no- 
body in  Russia  dreamed  of  paying  any  debt  to  a  Jewish 
trader  or  artisan  these  eighteen  months,"  and  that  the 
sums  due  throughout  the  empire  to  individual  Hebrews, 
who  have  been  driven  out  of  their  homes,  no  kopeck  of 
which  they  can  ever  hope  to  see,  would  in  the  aggregate 
mount  up  to  many  millions."  It  is  said  that  the  Jews 
are  usurers.  A  Russian  diplomat  in  Washington,  in  a 
recent  article  in  one  of  our  monthly  magazines,  contain- 
ing more  than  one  diplomatic  equivocation,  hints  at  this 
when  he  says  that  the  Hebrew  question  in  Russia  is 
neither  religious  nor  political,  but  an  economical  and  ad- 
ministrative question.  But  if  so,  why  does  not  the  gov- 
ernment proceed  against  other  usurers  ?  There  are  plenty 
of  usurers  against  w^hom  it  takes — to  use  the  polite  Ian- 


146  THE  RIGHT  OF   POLITICAL  ASYLUM. 

guage  of  diplomacy — no  "administrative"  measures.  Yes, 
if  it  is  anxious  to  take  the  load  of  financial  oppression  off 
the  backs  of  its  poor  subjects,  why  does  it  not  take  itself 
off? — for  it  is  the  worst  usurer  and  oppressor  in  exist- 
ence. The  peasants  have  sometimes  to  pay  nearly  all  they 
get  from  the  land  in  the  shape  of  interest  and  taxes  to  the 
government.  In  fact,  this  apology  from  diplomats,  from 
those  who  know,  is,  to  use  ordinary,  undiplomatic  lan- 
guage, a  lying  pretence. 

And  if  the  peasants  are  ground  down  in  the  country, 
the  workingmen  in  the  cities  and  towns  are  little  better 
off.  They  earn  on  the  average  four  roubles  (or  two  dol- 
lars) a  week,  and  the  women  two-and-a-half  roubles  (or 
one  dollar  and  twenty-five  cents),  working  thirteen  to  fif- 
teen hours  a  day,  and,  if  they  complain,  there  are  laws 
rendering  participation  in  strikes  punishable  with  impris- 
onment. Such  is  the  paternal  solicitude  of  the  Russian 
government  for  its  subjects! 

And  now,  when  a  Russian  of  liberal  mind  protests 
against  all  this ;  when  he  asks  for  reforms ;  when,  above 
all,  he  tries  to  enlighten  the  peasantry  or  the  working- 
class,  and  to  make  them  honorably  discontented  with  their 
lot,  what  is  the  result?  Three  years  ago  a  Russian  wo- 
man of  education,  the  editor  of  a  magazine  published  in 
St.  Petersburg,  sent  a  letter  to  the  Czar,  calling  upon  him, 
in  moderate  and  dignified  language,  to  institute  freedom 
of  speech,  inviolability  of  personal  rights,  freedom  of  as- 
sembly, open  courts,  ample  opportunities  for  education 
suited  to  all  capacities,  prevention  of  administrative  li- 
cense, and  a  national  assembly,  in  which  all  classes  shall 
be  represented  by  delegates  of  their  own  choosing, — 
these  are  the  only  things  that  would  save  the  state. 


COMPACT  WITH  DESPOTISM  IN  RUSSIA.  I47 

"You  are  an  autocratic  Czar,"  she  wrote,  "restrained  only  by 
the  laws  which  you  yourself  make  and  alter,  or  by  officials  who 
do  not  execute  them,  but  whom  you  yourself  appoint.  One  word 
from  you  and  there  will  be  a  change  in  Russia  which  will  leave 
a  bright  page  in  history." 

She  closed  with  these  words, — 

"Your  majesty  is  one  of  the  mightiest  monarchs  of  the  world. 
I  am  only  a  working  unit  in  the  hundred  million  whose  fate  you 
hold  in  your  hands;  but,  nevertheless,  I  feel  that  it  is  my  moral 
right  and  my  duty  to  say  to  you  what  I  have  said." 

What  was  the  reply  of  the  Czar?  She  was  arrested 
and  sentenced  to  exile  in  Siberia.  O  brave,  chivalrous 
monarch ! 

A  few  years  earlier  there  were  agrarian  troubles  in  one 
of  the  northern  districts.  Some  of  the  notables  of  the 
district  were  invited  by  the  Czar  to  explain  the  trouble, 
and  submit  plans  for  its  relief.  These  men  lived  a  long 
way  from  the  courts,  and  did  not  know  that  telling  the 
truth  was  out  of  fashion.  They  replied  in  good  faith, 
saying  that  the  grievances  were  well  founded,  and  sub- 
mitted a  plan  for  their  redress  which  entailed  the  institu- 
tion of  a  local  elective  assembly.  What  was  the  result? 
One  and  all  were  arrested;  some  were  sent  to  Siberia, 
some  to  fortresses  on  the  Baltic,  and  not  one  of  them  was 
again  seen  in  that  district. 

Alexander  II.  is  called  by  the  Russian  diplomat  at 
Washington,  to  whom  I  have  referred,  a  "magnanimous 
sovereign ;"  he  liberated  millions  of  serfs,  or,  as  a  clever 
Washington  woman,  who  has  perhaps  experienced  this 
diplomat's  blandishments,  puts  it  in  nervous  English,  he, 
'•'with  one  stroke  of  the  pen,  emancipated  all  the  serfs  of 
Russia."  But  this  great  liberator  pursued  as  narrow  and 
oppressive  a  policy  during  the  last  fifteen  years  of  his  life 
as  ever  his  successor  has  since,  and  a  few  months  after 


148  THE  RIGHT  OF   POLITICAL  ASYLUM. 

his  assasination  the  New  York  Nation,  usually  careful  in 
its  statements,  could  say  that  during  the  two  previous 
years  thousands  of  persons  had  been  subjected  to  horrible 
punishment,  not  only  without  trial  or  investigation,  but 
often  without  being  made  acquainted  with  the  charge 
against  them.  (And  against  all  this,  unfortunately,  the 
exemplary  private  life  of  Alexander  II.  cannot  be  ap- 
pealed to.) 

And  how  does  even  a  traveler  fare  in  the  Russian  do- 
minions? Those  who  would  like  an  answer  should  read 
Mr.  Poultney  Bigelow's  article  in  the  January  Harper's 
on  "Why  we  left  Russia,"  and  what  a  friendly  Russian 
said  to  him  when  he  expostulated  over  the  indignities  he 
had  experienced. 


"In  Russia  we  are  far  ahead  of  Western  Europe,"  this  gentle- 
man explained  "We  have  copied  lynch-law  from  America,  only 
here  the  government  does  the  lynching.  When  a  man  is  obnox- 
ious, reads  or  writes  or  talks  too  much,  we  do  not  bother  about 
courts  and  sheriffs.  He  disappears — that  is  all.  When  his 
friends  come  to  inquire  after  him,  the  government  shrugs  its 
shoulders  and  knows  nothing  about  it.  He  has  been  killed  by 
robbers,  perhaps,  or  he  has  committed  suicide !  The  government 
cannot  be  held  responsible  for  every  traveller  in  Russia,  of 
course.  When  a  military  attache  is  suspected  of  knowing  too 
much  about  Russian  affairs,  his  rooms  are  always  broken  into  and 
ransacked.  Not  by  the  government, — oh,  dear,  no !  That  would 
be  shocking !  It  is  always  done  by  burglars.  But,  odd  to  say,  the 
Russian  burglars  always  care  particularly  for  papers  and  letters. 
The  German  military  attache  has  had  his  rooms  broken  into 
twice  in  this  manner,  and  to  prevent  a  third  invasion  he  assured 
the  chief  of  police  that  there  was  no  use  doing  it  any  more ;  that 
he  really  never  kept  any  important  papers  there.  Since  then  he 
has  not  been  troubled  by  official  burglars." 

But  enough  of  this.  Who  wonders  that,  in  face  of  con- 
ditions like  these,  men  who  love  freedom  sometimes  grow 
desperate?  It  is  easy  for  us  over  here  to  say,  "Agitate 
peacefully;"  but  if  you  agitate  ever  so  peacefully  you 
are  none  the  less  in  danger  of  exile  or  the  scaffold.  Spread 


COMPACT  WITH  DESPOTISM  IN  RUSSIA.  I49 

ideas,  we  may  say,  do  not  use  force;  but  ideas  are  a 
crime  in  Russia,  and  for  a  thought,  if  uttered,  the  iron 
heel  of  the  despot  may  be  upon  you.  Change  the  laws,  we 
may  say,  but  do  not  break  them;  but  freemen  in  Russia 
have  no  right  to  make  laws.  Petition  for  a  redress  of 
grievances,  then;  but  petitions  are  unheard,  perhaps  un- 
read,— or,  if  read,  only  to  punish  you  for  your  insolence 
in  making  them.  Rise  in  arms,  then ;  but  you  cannot  rise 
in  arms  in  Russia.  Unhappy  people,  which  way  shall  they 
turn?  If  they  become  sycophants,  all  may  go  well  with 
them.  Or  if  they  turn  to  the  peaceful  walks  of  literature, 
or  of  science  or  of  art,  they  may  be  unmolested.  If  they 
give  themselves  up  to  charity,  and  feed  the  sufferers  by 
famine,  they  may  be  sweetly  patronized, — and  Americans 
who  come  bearing  alms  may  be  also.  Or  if  they  sink  to  a 
merely  brutish  life,  content  to  eat  and  sleep  and  labor,  and 
never  complain,  they  may  be  affectionately  treated  and 
called  "my  poor  people,"  and  be  piously  told  of  another 
world  where  things  will  go  better  with  them.  But  if  they 
breathe  a  thought  of  freedom,  beware !  If  they  dare  be 
men, — men  with  live  red  blood  in  their  veins,  "men  who 
their  duties  know,  but  know  their  rights"  as  well,  if  they 
venture  an  aspiration  like  that  of  our  forefathers  of  1776, 
or  make  a  demand  such  as  citizens  of  America  make  every 
day,  then  let  them  steel  their  hearts,  for  dreary  exile,  or 
dungeons  or  death  are  before  them.  Men,  sometimes  the 
best  men,  grow  mad  under  such  alternatives ;  they  do  wild 
things,  criminal  things ;  but  if  there  is  a  day  of  judgment, 
more  criminal  than  they  will  be  those  who  instituted,  car- 
ried on,  anywise  supported,  the  system  of  things  that 
drove  them  mad. 

I  do  not  defend,  I  do  not  justify,  any  act  of  assassina- 
tion that  was  ever  committed,  whether  in  Russia  or  else- 
where.    I  trust  I  am  not  without  due  feeling  for  the 


150  THE  RIGHT  OF  POLITICAL  ASYLUM. 

sanctity  of  human  life,  which  is  one  of  the  foundations  of 
ethics  and  one  of  the  bases  of  civiHzation,  but  in  the  Hght 
of  what  has  already  been  stated  it  is  simply  monstrous  to 
say  that  an  attempt  against  the  life  of  a  Czar  can  by 
no  manner  of  possibility  have  the  complexion  of  a  po- 
litical crime.  What  assassinations  in  the  past  have  had 
this  character  and  what  have  now,  I  do  not  undertake  to 
say.  I  do  not  know  the  evidence,  I  could  only  speak  by 
hearsay.  I  simply  say  that  if  any  such  act  in  the  future 
is,  in  the  light  of  all  the  evidence  that  may  be  brought  to 
bear  upon  it,  not  a  crime  springing  from  private  malice, 
but  really  an  attempt  to  overthrow  the  government, — a 
government,  too,  which  must  be  hateful  to  every  lover  of 
freedom,  and  which  ought  not  to  be  even  countenanced  by 
a  free  people,  save  for  economic  and  interested  reasons, — 
then  such  a  crime  should  not  be  reckoned  as  common  mur- 
der, and  should  not  be  extraditable  by  any  country  which 
has  risen  above  the  barbarism  of  giving  up  political  of- 
fenders. 

In  this  spirit,  then,  and  with  this  understanding  of  what 
is  involved  in  it,  I  oppose  the  treaty  with  Russia.  Is 
such  a  position  unheard  of?  Even  if  it  were,  it  would 
have  to  stand  on  its  own  merits  as  a  just  position ;  but,  as 
a  matter  of  fact,  it  is  a  position  that  has  been  practically 
taken  by  those  two  nations  that  have  stood  most  con- 
sistently for  freedom  in  the  modern  world, — England  and 
Switzerland.  In  1858  the  Italian  patriot  Orsini  attempt- 
ed to  assassinate  the  third  Napoleon,  believing  him  to  be 
the  chief  stumbling-block  in  the  way  of  Italian  indepen- 
dence and  the  principal  cause  of  the  anti-liberal  reaction 
in  Europe.  The  maker  of  the  bomb  with  which  the  at- 
tempt was  made  was  in  England.  He  was,  according  to 
the  principle  of  common  law,  an  accessory  before  the  fact 
and  equally  guilty  with  the  thrower  of  the  bombs.     But 


COMPACT  WITH  DESPOTISM  IN  RUSSIA.  I5I 

E'ngland  refused  to  give  him  up.  We  should  not  have  the 
right  to  make  such  a  refusal  in  case  of  a  similar  complica- 
tion with  Russia,  and  Napoleon  was  a  mild  despot  com- 
pared to  a  Czar  like  either  of  the  Alexanders.  Again,  as 
late  as  November,  1890,  a  bench  of  English  judges  were 
called  upon  to  consider  the  demand  of  the  Swiss  govern- 
ment for  the  extradition  of  a  man  who  was  proved  to 
have  shot  a  member  of  the  ministry  during  a  revolution 
excited  by  the  liberals  in  the  canton  of  Ticino.  Some 
evidence  was  presented  showing  that  the  accused  was 
moved  by  private  malice,  but  the  judges  held  that  his  act 
was  prima  facie  political,  and  gave  him  the  benefit  of  the 
exception  under  the  treaty.  Our  treaty  with  Russia  is 
peculiar  in  that  the  Czar  has  a  sanctity  thrown  about  his 
person  that  no  minister  of  his  or  official  in  his  government 
acquires.  A  crime  against  him  or  any  member  of  his 
family  is  bound  to  be  common  murder,  but  the  same  di- 
rected against  any  of  his  subordinates  our  government  is 
not  obliged  to  treat  as  extraditable.  The  treaty  has  thus 
the  air  of  a  sort  of  personal  tribute  to  the  Czar,  such  as 
those  might  have  arranged  who  have  been  guests  in  his 
house  or  otherwise  marked  with  his  favor.  It  is  a  great 
triumph  of  diplomacy,  I  make  no  doubt. 

Let  me  also  cite  one  instance  in  which  France  acted  on 
the  principle  for  which  I  am  contending.  In  1879  Hart- 
man  made  an  attempt  to  blow  up  the  Czar  by  a  mine 
under  the  railway  lines  at  Moscow.  He  fled  to  Paris, 
where  a  demand  was  made  by  the  Russian  government 
for  his  extradition.  It  is  interesting  to  note  that  the 
charge  brought  against  him  was  that  of  "damaging  public 
property," — a  common-law  offence.  Tlie  French  govern- 
ment was  about  to  hand  him  over  on  this  charge,  when 
Hartman  succeeded,  by  means  of  documents  in  his  pos- 
session, in  showing  that  his  offence  was  political  in  its  na- 


152  THE  RIGHT  OF   POLITICAL  ASYLUM. 

ture;  a  formidable  public  agitation  followed  in  his  favor, 
and  the  government  was  obliged  to  set  him  at  liberty. 
And  apart  from  all  particular  instances,  it  is  almost  uni- 
versally admitted  that  each  government  on  whom  a  de- 
mand may  be  made  should  have  discretionary  power  in 
deciding  to  what  category  any  given  crime  may  belong. 
France,  when  under  Napoleon  III.,  made  three  or  four 
treaties  with  second-class  powers,  in  which  it  surren- 
dered this  power.  But  America  has  the  unenviable  dis- 
tinction of  being  the  first  free  people  to  do  this,  first  with 
Belgium  and  Luxembourg  in  1882  and  1883,  and  now 
with  the  Czar  of  all  the  Russias.  England  has  never  done 
it,  and  I  venture  to  say  never  will.  When  Switzerland 
was  asked  by  President  Thiers  in  1871  for  the  surrender 
of  persons  charged  with  murder,  arson,  and  robbery  in 
Paris  during  the  Commune,  it  replied  that  the  right  of 
asylum  would  not  be  refused  to  mere  political  offenders, 
and  that  each  case  would  be  acted  on  as  it  arose,  persons 
demanded  being  held  in  custody  a  reasonable  time,  till  it 
could  be  determined  whether  they  were  to  be  classed  as 
ordinary  criminals  or  as  merely  political  offenders.^  This 
is  the  whole  principle  for  which  I  now  contend,  and  while 
there  may  be  no  practical  danger  in  disregarding  it  with 
a  constitutional  government  like  Belgium,  there  is  grave 
danger  in  disregarding  it  and  tying  our  hands  in  dealing 
with  a  despotism  like  Russia.  Yes,  we  have  done  with 
Russia  what  we  refused  to  do  with  England.  In  1886  we 
refused  a  treaty  with  England  because  it  contained  a 
clause  providing  for  the  extradition  of  dynamiters  as 
common-law  offenders.  As  it  would  appear,  our  govern- 
ment did  not  wish  to  bind  itself;  it  wished  to  be  free  to 
judge  of  any  special  case  on  its  merits;  but  with  Russia 


*Moore  "On  Extradition,"  vol.  i.,  pp.  311,  312. 


COMPACT  WITH  DESPOTISM  IN  RUSSIA.  1 53 

we  are  willing  to  bind  ourselves ;  we  are  ready  to  say  that 
no  violence  against  the  Czar  can  be  anything  but  a  com- 
mon-law offence.  What  a  strange,  unnatural  preference ! 
But  there  is  a  more  outrageous  aspect,  to  this  whole 
business  still.  We  by  this  treaty  agree  to  hand  over  to 
Russia  any  one  who  makes  an  attempt  on  the  life  of  the 
Czar  as  a  common  criminal ;  but  when  he  reaches  Russia 
he  is  not  tried  as  a  common  criminal, — that  is,  by  a  jury, 
and  with  the  safeguards  of  ordinary  law  procedure,  but 
by  an  extraordinary  tribunal.  The  very  same  law  which 
instituted  the  jury  deprived  the  ordinary  tribunals  of 
jurisdiction  in  the  case  of  all  crimes  against  the  Emperor 
and  the  Empire.  These  crimes  are  tried  before  courts 
without  a  jury.  The  gravest  of  them  may  be  taken  be- 
fore a  special  court  of  the  Senate,  and  as  the  Senators  are 
appointed  by  the  Czar,  the  Czar,  acting  through  his  crea- 
tures becomes  at  once  accuser  and  judge.  Recourse  may 
even  be  had  to  military  tribunals.  A  ukase  of  1878  gave 
provisionally  all  crimes  against  the  state,  as  against  its 
functionaries,  over  into  the  hands  of  courts-martial. 
Even  this  was  not  sufficient.  The  ordinary  methods  of 
courts-martial  were  too  slow.  According  to  a  ukase  of 
1879,  the  accused  could  be  tried  without  previous  in- 
quest, and  condemned  without  oral  testimony  of  wit- 
nesses. The  assassins  of  General  Strelnikof,  in  1882, 
were  judged  and  executed  in  twenty-four  hours.  Capital 
punishment  for  ordinary  crime  (murder  included)  has 
long  been  abolished  in  Russia,  it  should  be  observed.  But 
for  political  crime  it  has  been  re-established.  We  say  it  is 
hard  to  draw  the  line  between  political  crime  and  ordi- 
nary crime,  that  murder  is  murder,  against  whomsoever 
committed.  Russia  does  not  think  so;  it  is  only  murder 
directed  against  the  head  or  an  official  of  the  government 
that  (along  with  other  political  offences)   is  punishable 


154  THE   RIGHT   OF   POLITICAL   ASYLUM. 

with  death,  and  poHtical  crime  (according  to  the  Russian 
constitution)  might  be  said  to  be  defined  as  that  species 
of  crime  which  is  dealt  with  by  these  extraordinary  tri- 
bunals. Yet  the  United  States  government  is  binding 
itself  to  treat  as  common  crime  what  in  Russia  would  be 
tried  as  political  crime,  and  in  dealing  with  which  every- 
thing is  exceptional, — the  tribunal,  the  procedure,  and  the 
penalty.  The  French  writer,  from  whom  I  have  taken 
this  information,  Leroy-Beaulieu,  says, — 


"In  thus  placing  the  conspirators  beyond  the  pale  of  common 
law,  in  creating  specially  for  them  a  Draconian  legislation,  the 
Russian  government  has  forgotten  that  in  dealing  with  other  na- 
tions it  has  singularly  weakened  its  demands  for  extradition, 
founded  on  treaties  and  common  law."^ 


But  no;  with  the  government  at  Washington  Russia 
has  apparently  not  weakened  its  demands;  and  we  are 
either  so  stupid  and  ignorant,  or  else  so  lost  to  self-respect 
and  to  republican  traditions,  that  we  have  accepted  the 
treaty,  and  now  stand  before  the  world  as  the  sole  ally 
among  free  peoples  of  a  despotism,  the  like  of  which  does 
not  exist  in  the  Western  World. 

The  Institute  of  International  Law,  which  is  composed 
of  the  great  jurists  of  Europe,  took  up  this  very  question 
of  political  offences  at  its  meeting  in  Oxford  in  1880,  and, 
at  the  conclusion  of  a  careful  and  conservative  statement, 
said,  "In  every  case  extradition  must  not  be  granted  for  a 
crime  which  has  at  the  same  time  the  nature  of  a  political 
crime  and  of  a  crime  under  the  ordinary  law,  unless  the 
state  making  the  requisition  gives  the  assurance  that  the 
person  surrendered  shall  not  he  tried  by  unusual  courts.'"^ 


^L'Empire  des  Tsars  et  les  Russes,  vol.  ii.,  p.  420. 
^The  italics  are,  of  course,  mine.     See  Moore  "On  Extradition, 
vol.  i.,  p.  313,  note. 


COMPACT  WITH  DESPOTISM   IN  RUSSIA.  1 55 

But  Russia  tries  crimes  against  the  Czar  entirely  by  un- 
usual courts.  1 

I  am  in  doubt  whether  I  ought  not  to  go  still  further.  I 
seriously  question  whether  we  ought  to  have  any  treaty 
at  all  with  Russia  for  the  extradition  of  criminals.  It 
does  not  belong  to  the  company  of  civilized  governments. 
There  are  no  guarantees  of  fair  trial,  even  for  ordinary 
crime,  in  its  jurisdiction.^  The  right  of  trial  by  jury  does 
not  extend  to  Poland,  the  Caucasus,  and  several  other  de- 
partments of  the  empire.  Russia  does  not  allow  our  own 
citizens,  who  happen  to  be  Jews,  to  enter  its  domain,  or 
at  least  to  stay  more  than  a  few  hours.  What  has  liberal 
America  in  common  with  such  an  intolerant  despotism? 
Let  us  have  a  commercial  treaty,  if  our  business  inter- 
ests require  one;  let  us  by  all  means  settle  peaceably  dif- 
ferences about  territory,  Behring  Sea  troubles  and  the 
like ;  let  us  keep  up  our  "historic  friendship,"  so-called,  for 
all  it  is  worth  in  these  regards ;  but  beyond  this  it  may  be 
better  for  us  to  have  as  little  to  do  with  Russia  as  possible, 
save  in  so  far  as  we  may  help  her  people  in  time  of  fam- 
ine, or  as  private  individuals  among  us  may  unite  to  agi- 
tate against  her  and  her  shameful  barbarism. 

Jefferson  may  have  gone  too  far,  but  I  think  he  came 
nearer  to  the  true  American  spirit  than  does  our  degen- 
erate Senate  of  to-day,  when  he  said   (as  Secretary  of 


^It  is  possible  that  the  Treaty,  when  given  to  the  public,  will  be 
found  to  contain  a  statement  in  accordance  with  the  resolution 
of  the  Institute  of  International  Law  above  quoted.  But  the 
Treaty  projected  in  1887  contained  no  such  provision.  On  the 
other  hand,  Wheaton's  "International  Law"  says,  "The  United 
States  have  treaties  of  extradition  with  nearly  all  civilized  na- 
tions. These  treaties  have  the  common  feature  of  never  includ- 
ing, and  usually  expressly  excluding,  surrender  for  political  or 
military  offences,  or  offences  triable  by  military  or  summary 
courts,  and  of  not  including  petty  crimes  and  misdemeanors." 
(Dana's  ed.,  1866,  §115,  n.  73.) 

^Political  Science  Quarterly,  Dec,  1892,  p.  699. 


156  THE  RIGHT  OF   POLITICAL  ASYLUM. 

State),  in  answer  to  the  demand  of  citizen  Genet  for  four 
Frenchmen,  who  had  escaped  from  a  French  war-vessel 
after  (an  alleged)  plotting  against  the  republic, — 

"The  laws  of  this  country  take  no  notice  of  crimes  committed 
out  of  their  jurisdiction.  The  most  atrocious  offender,  coming 
within  their  pale,  is  received  by  them  as  an  innocent  man,  and 
they  have  authorized  no  one  to  seize  or  deliver  him.  The  evil  of 
protecting  malefactors  of  every  dye  is  sensibly  felt  here,  as  in 
other  countries,  but,  until  a  reformation  of  the  criminal  codes  of 
most  nations,  to  deliver  fugitives  from  them  would  be  to  become 
their  accomplices;  the  former,  therefore,  is  viewed  as  the  lesser 
evil."' 

It  may  be  well  to  have  ordinary  non-political  extradi- 
tion treaties  with  liberal  and  enlightened  countries,  like 
England  and  France  and  Switzerland, — possibly  with  all 
other  countries  with  whom  we  have  made  them, — save 
Russia.  But  with  Russia  the  case  changes.  England, 
unless  I  am  quite  mistaken,  has  no  extradition  treaty  with 
Russia  whatever,  and  eleven  years  ago,  as  I  am  credibly 
informed,  when  there  was  talk  in  London  of  proposals 
from  Russia  for  an  ordinary,  non-political  treaty,  public 
opinion  would  not  hear  of  the  project,  and  it  fell  through. 
I  cannot  help  thinking  that  it  would  be  more  dignified, 
more  in  keeping  with  the  free  spirit  of  Anglo-Saxon  po- 
litical institutions,  for  our  government  to  refuse  an  extra- 
dition treaty  with  Russia,  till  it  becomes  a  member  of  the 
company  of  civilized  and  constitutional  states.  I  may  be 
wrong  about  this,  however,  and  about  only  one  thing  am  I 
sure  that  I  am  right.  There  ought  to  be  no  such  treaty 
as  the  Senate  ratified  on  the  9th  of  February  last,  and  now 
only  awaits  the  formality  of  an  exchange  of  ratifications 
between  the  respective  governments  to  become  binding 
law.  Unless  it  is  different  from  what  it  has  been  supposed 
to  be  on  the  capital  point,  it  is  a  disgrace  to  the  nation. 


'Clarke  on  "Extradition"   (3d  edit.),  p.  35. 


COMPACT  WITH  DESPOTISM  IN  RUSSIA.  1 57 

I  know  I  run  the  risk  of  being  more  or  less  misunder- 
stood in  what  I  have  said,  though  I  have  tried  to  make 
my  positions  so  clear  that  a  wayfaring  man,  though  a 
fool,  could  see  what  they  are.  I  have  had  a  single  specific 
question  in  mind.  I  have  not  sought  to  solve  the  problem 
of  Russia,  though  I  am  perfectly  clear  that  assassination 
is  no  way  out,  but  is  as  useless  and  senseless  as  it  is 
wrong.  I  have  simply  asked.  Is  an  attempt  to  take  the  life 
of  the  Czar  necessarily  common  murder?  Is  our  govern- 
ment justified  in  prejudging  that  question  and  putting  it 
beyond  its  power  to  pass  on  any  particular  case  as  it 
arises f  And  is  it  honorable,  is  it  just,  is  it  even  honest, 
to  give  up  a  person  who,  though  not  a  political  criminal  in 
our  eyes,  is  a  political  criminal  in  the  eyes  of  Russia,  and 
will  be  dealt  with  not  even  according  to  common-law  jus- 
tice, zuhere  the  safeguards  are  scanty  enough,  but  accord- 
ing to  extraordinary  justice,  where  the  safeguards  are  as 
good  as  non-existent?  These  are  the  points  to  which  I 
have  spoken  and  till  further  light  is  given  me,  I  am  ready 
to  stand  by  my  answers  to  them.  I  have  spoken  as  an 
American,  jealous  of  my  country's  good  name  and  fame, 
and  indignant  when  she  leaves  her  queenly  place  among 
free  and  progressive  peoples,  and  stoops  to  be  the  cat's- 
paw  of  a  despot.  Sursum  corda — lift  up  thy  heart,  O 
America,  and  know  that  in  the  scheme  of  the  Eternal 
Providence  thou  art  made  for  better  things  than  that. 

And  yet  I  cannot  keep  my  thoughts  from  going  to 
Russia, — not  now  in  anger,  not  in  resentment,  but  in 
sympathy  and  pity.  How  simple,  how  innocent  the  de- 
mands of  the  party  of  reform  there,  how  heavy  and  how 
sullen  the  weight  which  opposes  them!  The  very  ter- 
rorists, the  Executive  Committee  who  decreed  the  death 
of  Alexander  II.,  in  a  letter  which  they  addressed  to  his 
successor  a  few  days  after  the  dire  event,  only  asked  for 


158  THE  RIGHT   OF   POLITICAL  ASYLUM. 

amnesty  to  political  offenders,  for  a  convention  of  repre- 
sentatives of  the  people,  for  free  speech,  free  meeting,  free 
press,  and  the  right  of  any  electoral  platform,  and  sol- 
emnly declared  that  in  case  these  concessions  were  made 
they  would  abide  by  the  decision  of  the  representatives 
of  the  people  and  no  more  appeal  to  physical  force.  "Be- 
lieve, your  Majesty,"  they  exclaimed,  "that  as  soon  as  the 
Czar  ceases  to  be  absolute,  as  soon  as  he  decides  to  follow 
the  demands  of  the  people,  he  may  confidently  discharge 
his  spies  and  his  guards,  and  burn  the  scaffolds."  And 
when  later  in  the  same  year  President  Garfield  was  assas- 
sinated, the  organ  of  the  Russian  Revolutionary  party 
(the  so-called  Nihilists)  published  on  its  first  page  a 
black-bordered  announcement  of  the  death  of  the  Presi- 
dent, with  the  following  declaration  under  it:  "Whilst 
expressing  to  the  American  people  its  deep  regret  at  the 
death  of  President  James  Garfield,  the  Executive  Commit- 
tee feels  it  its  duty  to  protest  in  the  name  of  the  Russian 
Revolutionary  party  against  all  acts  of  violence  similar 
to  that  just  perpetrated.  In  a  country  where  the  citizens 
enjoy  the  right  of  freely  expressing  their  opinions,  and 
where  the  will  of  the  people  not  only  makes  the  laws,  but 
chooses  the  persons  who  are  to  execute  them, — in  such  a 
country  political  assassinations  are  the  manifestation  of 
despotic  tendencies  identical  to  those  to  the  destruction 
of  which  we  are  devoting  our  lives  in  Russia.  Despot- 
ism, whether  wielded  by  individuals  or  by  parties,  is 
equally  condemnable,  and  violence  is  justifiable  only  when 
opposed  to  violence."  ^ 

Members  of  the  Ethical  Society  and  friends,  unless 
these  words  were  written  by  tricksters  (which  there  is  no 
reason  to  believe),  they  and  such  as  they  are  the  men 


^Narodnaia  Volia,  October  23,  1881. 


COMPACT  WITH  DESPOTISM  IN  RUSSIA.  1 59 

(and  women,  perchance)  who,  under  normal  conditions, 
would  make  the  best  blood  of  a  state.  Who  can  tell  what 
Russia  has  lost  and  is  losing  by  her  barbaric  and  inhuman 
political  methods?  What  France  suffered  when  she 
drove  out  her  Huguenots,  Russia  is  suffering  by  the  brave, 
great-souled  men  and  women  she  is  exiling  to  dungeons 
and  Siberian  snows,  or  driving  to  madness  and  suicide. 
May  a  remnant  still  survive!  Let  freemen  in  America 
arise  and  give  a  greeting  to  their  brothers  across  the  sea 
Though  their  hearts  are  low,  though  they  die,  let  us  give 
them  Hope,  and  despite  the  darkness,  despite  their  doubts 
and  their  fears,  and  despite  our  own,  let  us  cry  out  with 
them,  "Long  live  the  Russian  Republic !" 


BOOKS  BY  FELIX  ADLER 

The  Religion  of  Duty $1.20 

The  Essentisas  of  Spirituality  1.00 

Marriage  and  Divorce   50 

Moral  Instruction  of  Children Cloth    1.50 

Paper,  ^0;  (By  maU,  .58) 

Life  and  Destiny  Cloth    1.00 

"       **  '*         Boards      .60 

Creed  and  Deed Cloth      .90 

*•       *•        **     Paper,  .60;  (By  mail,  .68) 


PAMPHLETS  BY  FELIX  ADLER 


Five  Cents  a  Copy  unless  otbervrlse  stated. 


The  Freedom  of  Ethical  Fellowship. 

Consolations. 

The  Monroe  Doctrine  and  the  War  Spirit. 

Twentieth  Anniversary  of  the  Society  for  Ethical  Culture  of  New  York, 

The  International  Ethical  Congress. 

Our  Hopes  for  the  Twentieth  Centi\ry. 

Mohammed.    '    - 

The  Moral  Value  of  Science. 

The  Ph?lipp?;ne  War^T«vo  5i:thlcal  Questions. 

The  PP3»^eciUlsI^:?  or  /a.  R<jligi<?v.  * 

The  Negro  Problem  In  the  United  States. 

Spiritual  Renewal. 

The  Ethics  of  the  Labor  Struggle. 

Evils  Disclosed  by  the  Coal  Strike. 

The  Sabbath  and  the  World's  Fair. 

O.  E.  Frothlngham — Memorial  Address. 

The  Punishment  of  Children   (three  lectures).     10  cents. 

The  following  appear  In  Ethical  AddresseSj  10c.  each : 
Immortality:    Whence    and   Whither?     A   New    Statement   of    the   Aim 

of   the   Ethical    Culture   Societies. 
Shall  Ostracism  be  Used  by  Religious  Societies  In  the  Struggle  Against 

Public  Iniquity? 
Impending  Changes. 
Moral  CondltJoQP  in  American  Life. 
Self-Help  In  Affliction. 
The  Independence  of  Morality. 
Mental  Healing  as  a  Religion. 
The  Moral  Effect  of  Gambling. 
The  Fourfold  Path  of  Spiritual  Progress. 


AMERICAN  ETHICAL  UNION,  1415  Locust  St.Phila.,  Pa. 


Subscribers  to  EJtlilcal  Addresses  may  order  back  nnm- 
bers  of  tlie  INTFJRNATIONAL,  JOURNAL,  OP  ETHICS  com- 
talningr  tlie  folloipvingr  articles  at  SO  cents  eacli,  from  tlie 
AMERICAN  ETHICAL.  UNION,  1415  Locust  Street,  Phlla.,  Pa. 


The  Problem  of  Unsectarian  Moral  Instruction.  By  Felix 
Adler.     (Vol.  II,  No.  1.) 

The  Essentials  of  Buddhist  Doctrine  and  Ethics.  By  Prof. 
Maurice  Bloomfield.     (Vol.  Ill,  No.  3.) 

The  Moral  and  Ethical  Teachings  of  the  Ancient  Zoroastrian 
Religion.  By  Prof.  A.  V.  Williams  Jackson.  (Vol.  VII, 
No.  1.) 

The  History  and  Spirit  of  Chinese  Ethics.  By  Kirgiro  Naka- 
mura.     (Vol.  VIH,  No.  1.) 

The  Ethics  of  the  Koran.  By  Mary  Mills  Patrick.  (Vol.  11, 
No.  3.) 

The  Moral  Training  of  the  Yonng  in  China.  By  Chester  Hol- 
combe.     (Vol.  XIV,  No.  4.) 

The  Moral  Training  of  the  Young  Among  the  Jews.  By 
Henry  Berkowitz.     (Vol.  XV,  No.  2.) 

The  Moral  Education  of  the  Young  Among  the  Muslims.  By 
.Duncan  B.  Maedonald.     (Vol.  XV,  No.  3.) 

The  Moral  Training  of  the  Young  in  the  Catholic  Church.  By 

Rev.  Philip  R.  McDevitt.     (Vol.  XV,  No.  4.) 

The  Religious  Training  of  Children  by  Agnostics.  By  Mrs. 
Francis  Darwin.     (Vol.  XIII,  No.  2.) 

Instruction  of  the  Young  in  Sexual  Knowledge.  By  E.  Little- 
ton.    (Vol.  XTX,  No   4.) 


T] 


T] 


Tl 


Tl 


M- 


Et 


Tl 


Tl 


Tl- 


Tl 
TL 


Tl 

Tl 
R; 


THIS  BOOK  IS  DUE  ON  THE  LAST  DATE 
STAMPED  BELOW 


AN  INITIAL  FINE  OF  25  CENTS 

WILL  BE  ASSESSED  FOR  FAILURE  TO  RETURN 
THIS  BOOK  ON  THE  DATE  DUE.  THE  PENALTY 
WILL  INCREASE  TO  SO  CENTS  ON  THE  FOURTH 
DAY  AND  TO  $1.00  ON  THE  SEVENTH  DAY 
OVERDUE. 


subject  to  recall  aftei 


m£r 


Due  end  of  FALL  Quarrer    ^OV  1  r^O    4  ^j 


2fi  i570 


REC'DLD     MAf[15  71-5PM4  5 


(Vol. 

rodnce 

_'ol.  VI, 

Igwick. 


titehie. 


-ddams. 


'les  M. 


dams. 


-3uillee. 

^0.  3.) 
(Vol. 


(Vol. 

..4.) 
(Vol. 


LD  21-95m-7,'37 


AJxLfiitiuAJN  liTAiuAJj  ujNiujN,  i^io  JjOcusi;  »i.,  riiila.,  Pa. 


U.C.BERKELEY  LIBRARIES 


CD^s^3^nl 


5+2085 


UNIVERSITY  OF  CAUFORNIA  UBRARY 


